Does the Govt have anything else better to do? Feds going after piracy

W

wildcpac

Banned
Tax payers money wasted going after online websites that have tv shows and movies taped with someones cell phone online. Millions are unemployed, hundreds of millions of those around the world do not have food, health care is a mess, crime, etc etc etc etc. What does our govt do? Waste millions of dollars going after internet geeks for putting up the latest episode of Hells Kitchen and a cell phone video of Sex and the City 2.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118021286.html?categoryid=1009&cs=1

Homeland Security has come to Hollywood's rescue.
A week after the White House unveiled a plan to combat copyright theft, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York launched Operation in Our Sites, a concerted effort with Hollywood, to take down dot coms that offer firstrun movies and TV shows for download.

Initiative, unveiled by ICE assistant secretary John Morton and reps from the major studios, guilds and the Motion Picture Assn. of America has already seized the domain names of nine websites. They include Movieslinks.tv, Planetmoviez.com, ZML.com, Thepiratecity.org, Filespump.com, TVShack.net, Now-Movies.com, NinjaVideo.net and NinjaThis.net. All had offered such pics as "Iron Man 2," "The A-Team," "Sex and the City 2," "Avatar," "Lost" and "Scrubs."

The announcement was made in dramatic fashion on Wednesday, held in a soundstage amid sets under construction on the Disney lot, where Alan Bergman, prexy of the Walt Disney Studios, introduced Morton.

The nine sites have been shut down and an official legal notice was posted on them, alerting users to the seizures. Agents from ICE's Homeland Security Investigations also seized assets from banks, PayPal, investment and advertising accounts, and executed four residential search warrants in several states for other online ventures distributing entertainment.

Until now, efforts to shut down sites that pirate entertainment have been done on a one-off basis. Operation in Our Sites will be an ongoing effort, and not just in the U.S. but overseas, where ICE has jurisdiction to shut down pirates in 44 countries. Morton said 100 special agents in 11 states and the Netherlands had worked on shutting down the nine sites announced Wednesday.

"This battle won't be won in the United States," Morton said. "We have to wage this war globally."

The org is also monitoring other items distributed over the Internet, such as counterfeit pharmaceuticals, software, electronics and various "products that threaten public health and safety."

Undercover investigators downloaded a number of newly released movies from the Web sites and their affiliates.

Movieslinks alone attracted 3.3 million visitors last month, with 37,000 having watched "Sex and the City 2" in a single day. NinjaVideo offered "Iron Man 2" two days before of its release. More than 200 movies and 300 TV shows were found on that site. Combined, all of the sites shut down attracted 6.7 million visitors last month.

Most of the films found on the sites were recorded in theaters or obtained "from other sources" and then posted online within hours of their release, ICE said.

Hollywood has long been turning to the U.S. government for help to wage a war against piracy. This has been especially true now that more people can access the Internet at higher speeds and can connect using a variety of mobile platforms.

"Content theft online has become increasingly ubiquitous as technology and software improve and access to the Internet increases," said Mike Robinson, chief of operations, content protection, for the MPAA. He noted that 39% of all Internet traffic in the world takes place on peer-to-peer download sites that trade copyrighted material.

That has impacted the amount of revenue studios can collect from their films and TV shows, with the sale of DVDs having taken the biggest hit. The lost revenue also has triggered job cuts across the biz.

An estimated 2.4 million people work in the film and TV production industry, which contributes nearly $80 billion each year to the U.S. economy, the MPAA said. But online piracy has made it difficult for studios to generate more coin from their digital divisions.

Paramount, alone said it distributes its product to more than 200 online platforms, but has faced the impact of piracy on a constant basis. Internet users have tried to download "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" more than 16 million times since it was released, according to Frederick Huntsberry, Paramount Pictures' chief operating officer.

The commercialization of online piracy makes it difficult for consumers to distinguish between legitimate and illegal downloads, said Kathy Garmezy, associate executive director of government and international affairs for the Directors Guild of America. "If left unchecked, this illegal activity threatens the very ability of filmmakers to both earn a living and create the content that is enjoyed by billions around the world."

She added that 70% of a film's total revenue and 50% of that collected by a TV show comes from secondary markets.

Several of the dot coms shut down by ICE had also earned revenue from donations and advertising from companies that may not have known their ads were appearing on the sites, officials said.

As it continues monitoring the web for pirates, ICE said it will focus on pulling the plug on other distribution sites and digital content lockers that offer entertainment for free. It has no plans yet to go after and punish individuals that download such content. It will instead focus on educating them that the practice is illegal and "a serious crime."
 
Jesus, I can't stand it when the government gets it into their head that it's their job to enforce the laws they've made.
 
[quote name='bvharris']Jesus, I can't stand it when the government gets it into their head that it's their job to enforce the laws they've made.[/QUOTE]

this.

OP is right, this is low on the priority list. its also low on the getting riled up about list.
 
[quote name='bvharris']Jesus, I can't stand it when the government gets it into their head that it's their job to enforce the laws they've made.[/QUOTE]

I don't know - there's a difference between impartially enforcing the law and acting as industry's private security force. Sure there are many laws concerning copyright - but I believe it's primarily a civil (and not criminal) matter.

It's one thing if a cop walking the beat happens across some gangbanger selling bootleg Jay-Z CDs. However it's a different matter when the government uses my taxdollars to setup investigative units that answer to the entertainment companies and their vaguely defined piracy concerns.

AFAIC it should treated as a civil matter and if the entertainment company is concerned about piracy they should be funding all of the investigative legwork. If they need to contact government agents about enforcing a warrant on a bootleg DVD warehouse then that's one thing, but the entertainment companies shouldn't need a federal handout in the form of investigating officials to deal with online piracy.

If anyone deserves federal intervention it's the little fish being shaken down by wreckless lawsuit factories over questionable copyright claims.
 
First of all, criminal penalties do exist for copyright infringement. Says so right at the beginning of every movie you've ever watched legally.

My impression from reading the article is that the idea isn't to go after John Q. Nerd, but rather the web sites which provide pirated content. Seems to me well within the scope of enforcing copyright law, in fact I don't see any ambiguity in it at all.
 
I'm all for increasing enforcement of piracy.

As we move further into an era of digital products, it's going to become more and more important to find ways to protect digital content.

Eventually, when broad band is everywhere in a few decades etc, we'll get to the point that most every movie, album, book etc. is sold in a digital version.

That's a scary thing for authors/musicians/filmmakers and the publishers/labels/studios etc. as it's so much easier to acquire digital goods illegally than to shoplift a physical copy or buy a cheap bootleg disc etc.

So personally I support it becoming a criminal rather than civil matter as we move further down the digital distribution road. Shoplifting will be less of a problem in these industries, so it will be illegal acquisition of digital goods that's the main threat to these industries.
 
[quote name='bvharris']First of all, criminal penalties do exist for copyright infringement. Says so right at the beginning of every movie you've ever watched legally.

My impression from reading the article is that the idea isn't to go after John Q. Nerd, but rather the web sites which provide pirated content. Seems to me well within the scope of enforcing copyright law, in fact I don't see any ambiguity in it at all.[/QUOTE]

I said I believed it was primarily a civil matter - as in yes durr of course I know of the scary FBI warning in front of movies.

[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm all for increasing enforcement of piracy.

As we move further into an era of digital products, it's going to become more and more important to find ways to protect digital content.

Eventually, when broad band is everywhere in a few decades etc, we'll get to the point that most every movie, album, book etc. is sold in a digital version.

That's a scary thing for authors/musicians/filmmakers and the publishers/labels/studios etc. as it's so much easier to acquire digital goods illegally than to shoplift a physical copy or buy a cheap bootleg disc etc.

So personally I support it becoming a criminal rather than civil matter as we move further down the digital distribution road. Shoplifting will be less of a problem in these industries, so it will be illegal acquisition of digital goods that's the main threat to these industries.[/QUOTE]

I think most copyright law should be civil because copyright is much trickier then property theft. Much as you may find it ridiculous, most people are not as bright as you and I. There are many people who would never dream of stealing a CD but don't understand that making a copy for a friend my be illegal (particularly young adults). To complicate it further, sometimes it's ok to copy a CD. You think that the average Joe can figure the difference?

I don't have a problem with the govt setting up a program to help indies because you're right - if someone is ripping them off then they likely can't afford to follow up on it. Then again I'm kind of a lefty so I would support something like that :D

What I don't want is having the fed start funding private security for every industry on the planet, especially when those industries have deep pockets. And almost exclusively it's the industries with deep pockets that are "hurt" by online piracy.

What's next - we start replacing every Walmart inventory control guy with a cop? As a taxpayer I don't want to pay into the Walmart CEO's salary any more then I want to pay into the WMG CEO's salary.
 
[quote name='camoor']I don't know - there's a difference between impartially enforcing the law and acting as industry's private security force. Sure there are many laws concerning copyright - but I believe it's primarily a civil (and not criminal) matter.

[/QUOTE]

...and this is why you're not in law or law enforcement. If it's illegal (criminal) to pirate, violate copyright, steal intellectual property do you propose the victim is the only one that pursue the criminal? What if your car is stolen? Should the victim have to track it down, then sue the thief, or would you like law enforcement to get involved then?

We can argue the validity of the law (which I don't disagree with as best I know it), but there isn't really a logical argument against enforcing the law.
 
[quote name='camoor']
I think most copyright law should be civil because copyright is much trickier then property theft. Much as you may find it ridiculous, most people are not as bright as you and I. There are many people who would never dream of stealing a CD but don't understand that making a copy for a friend my be illegal (particularly young adults). To complicate it further, sometimes it's ok to copy a CD. You think that the average Joe can figure the difference?
[/QUOTE]

Oh I agree with all that.

Any criminalization would have to be aimed at uploaders. People putting content online for anyone to download etc. That's the major threat that needs dealt with. People running pirate sites, uploading stuff to torrents etc. know what they're doing.

Minor things like burning a friend a cd could remain civil matters. Those things are as inevitable as people giving away books/cds, buying used etc. The industry just has to deal with that kind of loss, regardless of format.

It's the major online piracy needs to be dealt with much more harshly, and not with just sporadic law suits with absurd settlements that can never be paid off etc. That's the real threat as you can have one purchased album/book/movie make it into the hands of thousands of people that way, vs. a person making a copy for a friend or two etc.

[quote name='camoor']
What's next - we start replacing every Walmart inventory control guy with a cop? As a taxpayer I don't want to pay into the Walmart CEO's salary any more then I want to pay into the WMG CEO's salary.[/QUOTE]

But law enforcement is still involved.

Wal-mart, and most every store, has their own security. But if they want to charge someone with shoplifting they still have to call the police and the police have to come and arrest the person and conduct their own investigation etc.

The problem with digital goods is the thing that needs monitored is not the store or their online store, but the whole internet. So it will be the responsibility of governments to have law enforcement agencies to do investigations--though publishers etc. could probably also have their own investigative divisions and refer info onto the authorities for arrest and prosecution similar to how security in stores works.
 
Ugh, I have to say...I don't even want to vote anymore. I thought Obama would be above shit like this.

Do we really need another "war" on our own citizens?
 
[quote name='berzirk']What if your car is stolen? Should the victim have to track it down, then sue the thief, or would you like law enforcement to get involved then?[/QUOTE]

:lol: Yeah I'm sure they'll put the major case squad right on that one.

Now it's true that ideally the cops should track down individual car thefts, but then again people shouldn't steal and car owners should get a lojack. There's what should happen and what does happen, and it comes down to politics and limited resources.

Where the limited enforcement money goes is currently up for debate. Frankly I think it's time for the mainstream entertainment industry to put on their big boy pants. Just as I have to buy car insurance to protect my automobile investment against theft, the entertainment industry should be spending their own coin to protect their property.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Ugh, I have to say...I don't even want to vote anymore. I thought Obama would be above shit like this.

Do we really need another "war" on our own citizens?[/QUOTE]

Oh please. Our federal government is pretty big, I don't think Obama is personally sitting in on the "let's go after piracy" meetings. Besides, if you'd read the article, it's talking about going after piracy sites, not individuals. But yeah, totally a war on our own citizens.
 
[quote name='camoor']:lol: Yeah I'm sure they'll put the major case squad right on that one.
[/QUOTE]

I work (research) with police a lot. Major city departments tend to have a separate auto theft unit, and they do pretty thorough investigations. Along with having patrol officers constantly running tag numbers while patrolling to stumble across stolen cars etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Oh I agree with all that.

Any criminalization would have to be aimed at uploaders. People putting content online for anyone to download etc. That's the major threat that needs dealt with. People running pirate sites, uploading stuff to torrents etc. know what they're doing.

Minor things like burning a friend a cd could remain civil matters. Those things are as inevitable as people giving away books/cds, buying used etc. The industry just has to deal with that kind of loss, regardless of format.

It's the major online piracy needs to be dealt with much more harshly, and not with just sporadic law suits with absurd settlements that can never be paid off etc. That's the real threat as you can have one purchased album/book/movie make it into the hands of thousands of people that way, vs. a person making a copy for a friend or two etc.



But law enforcement is still involved.

Wal-mart, and most every store, has their own security. But if they want to charge someone with shoplifting they still have to call the police and the police have to come and arrest the person and conduct their own investigation etc.

The problem with digital goods is the thing that needs monitored is not the store or their online store, but the whole internet. So it will be the responsibility of governments to have law enforcement agencies to do investigations--though publishers etc. could probably also have their own investigative divisions and refer info onto the authorities for arrest and prosecution similar to how security in stores works.[/QUOTE]

Again, everything you say is quite reasonable. I'd just like to add that I think the punishment should fit the crime. I don't think it's right that anyone face a quarter-million dollar fine for uploading a dozen tunes, as happened reasonably (and I believe you'd agree). There's justice and then there's draconian corporatism.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Ugh, I have to say...I don't even want to vote anymore. I thought Obama would be above shit like this.
[/QUOTE]

Why ??

He's a politician, and like all politicians when the people who lobby them or pay into their election funds say "Jump" the reply is "How high ?"

TBH you can't really blame the copyright holders for going after the people who are costing them money, I'd rather see it done like this than lawyers sending out random letters to individuals hoping to scare people into paying up.

EDIT - Course if you don't download stuff illegally or upload stuff then you have nothing to worry about I guess.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I work (research) with police a lot. Major city departments tend to have a separate auto theft unit, and they do pretty thorough investigations. Along with having patrol officers constantly running tag numbers while patrolling to stumble across stolen cars etc.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, just personal experience.

My building got hit by a professional squad that stole specific parts from Hondas, they knew what they were doing and then they were gone I mean gone. I also have some friends in DC who are less then impressed with that city's auto theft unit. However I'm sure my anecdotal experience is more of a YMMV thing then anything else.

To be honest I never really expect the police to protect me, I just assume it's primarily my responsibility to look out for myself and my own. Unfortunately what I've seen around here mostly bears this viewpoint out.
 
[quote name='camoor']Sorry, just personal experience.

My building got hit by a professional squad that stole specific parts from Hondas, they knew what they were doing and then they were gone I mean gone. I also have some friends in DC who are less then impressed with that city's auto theft unit. However I'm sure my anecdotal experience is more of a YMMV thing then anything else. [/quote]

I'm just saying they have the units and do put a lot of resources into it.

The fact is that the majority of cases just aren't solvable as there's not much evidence. All they can do is look for the car really. Stolen parts is even harder to solve.

To be honest I never really expect the police to protect me, I just assume it's primarily my responsibility to look out for myself and my own. Unfortunately what I've seen around here mostly bears this viewpoint out.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the two aren't mutually exclusive. One should do everything they can to protect themselves and they're belongings. But that doesn't mean that the police presence doesn't have some deterrent effect and that we don't need the police to be their to investigate crimes when they do occur despite our precautions.

And besides, we're talking piracy here. There's not much labels/publishers/studios etc. can do to prevent loser pirates from uploading and downloading their digital content illegally. Most they can do is have their own investigation units monitoring the internet and forward info/evidence on to the authorities for prosecution.
 
[quote name='camoor']Again, everything you say is quite reasonable. I'd just like to add that I think the punishment should fit the crime. I don't think it's right that anyone face a quarter-million dollar fine for uploading a dozen tunes, as happened reasonably (and I believe you'd agree). There's justice and then there's draconian corporatism.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, punishment should definitely fit the crime. Fines shouldn't much exceed the value of the goods for downloads.

Uploading can be dealt with more severely for the extreme cases (running pirate sites, sharing thousands and thousands of copyrighted items etc) as those could be felonies. Minor uploading could be dealt with like downloads, fines not much exceeding value of the items.
 
[quote name='bvharris']Oh please. Our federal government is pretty big, I don't think Obama is personally sitting in on the "let's go after piracy" meetings. Besides, if you'd read the article, it's talking about going after piracy sites, not individuals. But yeah, totally a war on our own citizens.[/QUOTE]

oh yeah, i'm sure this is just an ice thi...

The United States Government has made up its mind on how to tackle copyright infringement related issues in the coming years. After having consulted the public and a wide range of experts, the first Joint Strategic Plan of Obama’s administration to combat intellectual property infringement was unveiled today.

“Piracy hurts, it hurts our economy,” was one of the first lines Vice President Joe Biden spoke today, setting the tone for his grim speech. According to the new plan, piracy is a major threat to the US economy and a global crackdown is needed to save businesses from going bankrupt.

Interestingly, Biden’s statement stands in contrast with what the Government Accountability Office told US congress earlier this year, as it concluded that there is virtually no evidence for the claimed million dollar losses by the entertainment industry.

“Lack of data hinders efforts to quantify impacts of counterfeiting and piracy,” was one of the main conclusions from their report. In fact, copyright infringements may also benefit the entertainment industries and third parties, the Government Accountability said, adding that piracy could actually benefit the economy.

Nevertheless, Biden said that the US was going to “lead by example” and crack down on websites that allow the public to download and share copyrighted works. In addition, the US will ‘push’ foreign governments to do the same in their countries. Whether this ‘push’ would include threats similar to the ones the US made against Sweden over The Pirate Bay was left in the dark.

To top it off the Vice President reiterated the words commonly uttered by pro-copyright lobbyists such as the RIAA and MPAA. “Piracy is theft, clean and simple, it’s smash and grab,” Biden said, comparing unauthorized downloading to robbing a jewelry store. Although semantically incorrect, since ‘theft’ implies that something is taken away and not copied, the message is clear.
Click to expand...

http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-is-theft-clean-and-simple-us-vice-president-says-100622/
 
So since you linked to a site called "torrentfreak" I guess your panties are in a bunch over this because you're a pirate?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Agreed, punishment should definitely fit the crime. Fines shouldn't much exceed the value of the goods for downloads.

Uploading can be dealt with more severely for the extreme cases (running pirate sites, sharing thousands and thousands of copyrighted items etc) as those could be felonies. Minor uploading could be dealt with like downloads, fines not much exceeding value of the items.[/QUOTE]

I think that's my concern. The entertainment companies have not been acting reasonably, so I'm immediately skeptical when I hear more of my tax dollars are going to be diverted to prosecuting piracy.

Others can say this is the right thing to do, or counts as a win. Me, I'm waiting for the day when our legislative branch denounces the DMCA punishments as draconian and the Mickey Mouse law extensions as ridiculous approaching insanity. Methinks I'm going to be holding my breath a loooong time.
 
[quote name='camoor']I think that's my concern. The entertainment companies have not been acting reasonably, so I'm immediately skeptical when I hear more of my tax dollars are going to be diverted to prosecuting piracy.

Others can say this is the right thing to do, or counts as a win. Me, I'm waiting for the day when our legislative branch denounces the DMCA punishments as draconian and the Mickey Mouse law extensions as ridiculous approaching insanity. Methinks I'm going to be holding my breath a loooong time.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

But that would be a benefit of making a lot of it a criminal rather than civil manner. Punishments can be more standardized, can't be excessive (cruel and unusual punishment) etc. which is much harder to limit in civil courts.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']So since you linked to a site called "torrentfreak" I guess your panties are in a bunch over this because you're a pirate?[/QUOTE]

TorrentFreak is the top site on the internet for torrent news? Does that change what Biden said?

My panties are in a bunch since the internet is starting to get more and more regulated and that is the one thing I thought wouldn't happen with the Obama administration.
 
[quote name='camoor']

Where the limited enforcement money goes is currently up for debate. Frankly I think it's time for the mainstream entertainment industry to put on their big boy pants. Just as I have to buy car insurance to protect my automobile investment against theft, the entertainment industry should be spending their own coin to protect their property.[/QUOTE]

You don't need to insure your car against theft. You are only required to insure it against your own liability.

I'm also not sure there's that much of a limit on law enforcement money, since we're talking the feds here. If we were discussing a couple of small town cops being assigned to federal piracy, then it would be a different story.

Those companies pay taxes, so they are in effect spending their own coin to protect their property...and to have street lights...and to have roads. This idea that a crime is committed and your opinion is that if you're rich you should have to pay to prevent and prosecute, but if you're poor (indie labels) the gov't should do it for you, isn't realistic or fair.

To bring it back to cars, if someone steals a '96 Neon, the cops should get involved, but if they steal some guy's Porche, the victim should have to spend his money to recover and prosecute the criminal? Come on...you can't really believe THAT! :p
 
[quote name='Sporadic']My panties are in a bunch since the internet is starting to get more and more regulated and that is the one thing I thought wouldn't happen with the Obama administration.[/QUOTE]

There's a far cry between cracking down on piracy and regulating the internet.

I don't see why anyone other than losers who pirate copyrighted material rather than paying for it would be opposed to trying to stop people from illegally uploading and downloading files.

As a social scientist it's always intrigued me how the move to digital products has lowered people's more objections to obtaining content they didn't pay for. As camoor said before, most people wouldn't think of stealing a CD, but have no moral qualms about downloading thousands of songs, or movies, or e-books etc.

And then get upset when the people who are losing money from their illegal acquisition of their materials want more regulations. That really the same thing as shop lifters complaining about being prosecuted for stealing!

In any case, cracking down on piracy isn't limiting internet freedom etc. It's stopping illegal activity that costs industries millions of dollars.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']There's a far cry between cracking down on piracy and regulating the internet.[/QUOTE]

Not really.

[quote name='dmaul1114']I don't see why anyone other than losers who pirate copyrighted material rather than paying for it would be opposed to trying to stop people from illegally uploading and downloading files.[/QUOTE]

lol

Let me guess, you also don't care about the various governments wanting to run their own blacklists because they will only use it for child porn? Only some type of pedophile would oppose that, right?

http://torrentfreak.com/”child-pornography-is-great”-anti-pirates-say-100429/
http://torrentfreak.com/torrent-sites-end-up-on-aussie-blacklist-090319/

oh wait, sorry linked to that torrent site again

[quote name='dmaul1114']As a social scientist it's always intrigued me how the move to digital products has lowered people's more objections to obtaining content they didn't pay for. As camoor said before, most people wouldn't think of stealing a CD, but have no moral qualms about downloading thousands of songs, or movies, or e-books etc.[/QUOTE]

Because there is no physical loss. I don't see how it is that hard to figure out.

Same way how utilizing a library isn't stealing even though you didn't personally pay for whatever you checked out. They pay for 1 copy and loan it out to potentially thousands of people.

[quote name='dmaul1114']And then get upset when the people who are losing money from their illegal acquisition of their materials want more regulations. That really the same thing as shop lifters complaining about being prosecuted for stealing![/QUOTE]

Again, not really.

The way to combat piracy is to take away the incentives to pirate not regulations while sitting on your hands thinking your current business model is a-ok.

Netflix/Hulu is a good example. I could track down and download the latest TV show I missed or movie I want to see but why would I do that when I can pay $10 a month and not have to deal with any of that shit?

[quote name='dmaul1114']In any case, cracking down on piracy isn't limiting internet freedom etc. It's stopping illegal activity that costs industries millions of dollars.[/QUOTE]

US Government Accountability Office disagrees with you.

http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-recognizes-benefits-of-piracy-100413/
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-423
 
[quote name='Sporadic']
Because there is no physical loss. I don't see how it is that hard to figure out.
[/quote]

That's the argument that drives me nuts. In 100 years there probably won't be any physical books, movies, albums etc. coming out. It will all be digital content and for those industries traditional theft is no longer an issue.

The problem is people stealing/illegally obtaining digital files. And the laws must adapt to this changing face of theft/product loss/lost sales.

Same way how utilizing a library isn't stealing even though you didn't personally pay for whatever you checked out. They pay for 1 copy and loan it out to potentially thousands of people.
Click to expand...

But there one copy is paid for. Only one person can have it at a time, and there aren't multiple copies being generated. Well, someone could photo copy the book and distribute it--but that's illegal.

Digital files one person can buy it/illegally obtain it, keep a copy for themselves and give it to a limitless number of people who can all have a copy to use at the same time, while passing on copies to other people etc.

Apples and oranges.

The way to combat piracy is to take away the incentives to pirate not regulations while sitting on your hands thinking your current business model is a-ok.

Netflix/Hulu is a good example. I could track down and download the latest TV show I missed or movie I want to see but why would I do that when I can pay $10 a month and not have to deal with any of that shit?
Click to expand...

It's not a total solution though. There are people who legitimately want to own copies of things, so they can't just do a streaming service.

Plus, Hulu will do little to thwart piracy once it goes paid as most lowlife pirates aren't going to pay $10 a month for stuff they can get free.

So really the only solution that would kill piracy through your suggestion of taking away incentives is to give away content for free as that's the only way to 100% kill the incentive.

And obviously that's not going to happen. People are writing books, making music, making movies to make money. If they wanted to give it away they could easily do so and never sign a contract to sell it etc.

So in short piracy has to be something dealth with by law enforcement. There are things the industry can do like Hulu, not having DRM that's a hassle for legitimate users and does nothing to stop piracy etc. But there will always be a sizable amount of people out there who will always do everything they can to pirate everything they can for free.

And that's where the law and law enforcement have to adapt to deal with the age of digital content.
 
[quote name='berzirk']To bring it back to cars, if someone steals a '96 Neon, the cops should get involved, but if they steal some guy's Porche, the victim should have to spend his money to recover and prosecute the criminal? Come on...you can't really believe THAT! :p[/QUOTE]

Well it is a faulty analogy on it's face because cars aren't like songs. For one thing, I can't just make a copy of your car to drive around in.

That having been said, in an analogy if the indie musician is like the guy with the Neon then the record label is like an owner of several car dealerships. A porsche owner would simply be a more successful indie musician.

Let's say the guy with the car dealerships was majorly cheap and stupid to boot. He routinely understaffs and refuses to hire a security consultant, and as a consequence his cars are always getting stolen off the lot. Obviously the cops need to make a certain effort to recover the cars. However should the cops be forced to form a car recovery taskforce that answers to the owner because the owner is too cheap to employ any theft protection services?

I'm not saying this is an entirely fair comparison, especially since the analogy is faulty on several levels at this point. I'm just trying to point out that there is more then one way to view this, it's much less of a black-and-white issue then the movie studios and the policiticians taking their campaign contributions would like you to believe.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']wtf did you just compare a public library with a torrent site?[/QUOTE]

Sadly I've seen that comparison/justification used repeatedly on various forums over the years when people try to down play piracy and argue that it's not comparable to theft.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Sadly I've seen that comparison/justification used repeatedly on various forums over the years when people try to down play piracy and argue that it's not comparable to theft.[/QUOTE]

+1. I've read some crap on this site, but this is bonkers.
 
[quote name='camoor']Well it is a faulty analogy on it's face because cars aren't like songs. For one thing, I can't just make a copy of your car to drive around in.

That having been said, in an analogy if the indie musician is like the guy with the Neon then the record label is like an owner of several car dealerships. A porsche owner would simply be a more successful indie musician.

Let's say the guy with the car dealerships was majorly cheap and stupid to boot. He routinely understaffs and refuses to hire a security consultant, and as a consequence his cars are always getting stolen off the lot. Obviously the cops need to make a certain effort to recover the cars. However should the cops be forced to form a car recovery taskforce that answers to the owner because the owner is too cheap to employ any theft protection services?

I'm not saying this is an entirely fair comparison, especially since the analogy is faulty on several levels at this point. I'm just trying to point out that there is more then one way to view this, it's much less of a black-and-white issue then the movie studios and the policiticians taking their campaign contributions would like you to believe.[/QUOTE]

As you point out yourself, that analogy is a major slippery slope. I don't disagree that personal (or in this case corporate) responsibility plays a factor, but someone could easily stretch your argument and say "Since you were too stupid to carry around a gun, you shouldn't expect the police to help when you get mugged." Sadly, I'm sure there are some people who do think that.
 
[quote name='bvharris']As you point out yourself, that analogy is a major slippery slope. I don't disagree that personal (or in this case corporate) responsibility plays a factor, but someone could easily stretch your argument and say "Since you were too stupid to carry around a gun, you shouldn't expect the police to help when you get mugged." Sadly, I'm sure there are some people who do think that.[/QUOTE]

However I don't think that's too much of an issue. I think there are more people who naively think that the police have a mission to stop all crime. The police are there to keep the peace and that's a big enough job. It really falls on all of us to make sensible decisions regarding our security and the security of our property.

Please keep in mind I feel bad for all victims of crime and every victim deserves justice. But the reality of the world is that it's a jungle out there.
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']+1. I've read some crap on this site, but this is bonkers.[/QUOTE]

Honestly, why is it that crazy? Because the library is universally accepted as ok?

How much do you pay to check stuff out from the library?
$0
How much does the library pay for that book or cd or dvd?
standard MSRP for that copy
How many times can the library rent out that copy?
as many times as they can before the item gets damaged so much they can't anymore

Using anti-piracy logic, every time somebody uses the library to check out something, that is lost profit. If that book that was checked out 100 times in it's lifetime, that is 99 lost sales. You are damaging the industry. Why do you hate the artist so much? Don't they deserve compensation for your use of their work?

This is nothing new. Every generation, _______ will destroy _________ industry if we don't get this under control. The businesses that survive are the ones who innovate, adapt and evolve. Who cares about the ones who choose not to? fuck them.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18513_5-insane-file-sharing-panics-from-before-internet.html (there is a better written article with these same points but I can't find it)

It's pointless to talk to dmaul1114 since he uses loaded terms to try and make his point.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Plus, Hulu will do little to thwart piracy once it goes paid as most lowlife pirates aren't going to pay $10 a month for stuff they can get free.[/QUOTE]

Oh shit, I don't pay for anything I can get for free? That's news to me. Better cancel my cable, Blockbuster Online, and Netflix account and retire my Amazon MP3/Kindle account.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']
Oh shit, I don't pay for anything I can get for free? That's news to me. Better cancel my cable, Blockbuster Online, and Netflix account and retire my Amazon MP3/Kindle account.[/QUOTE]

You're one person. And I said having those things does no doubt help cut piracy, and the industries can do things like that, dropping DRM etc. etc. to try to reduce piracy a bit.

But there are obviously many other who still choose to get stuff for free rather than going those routes, or there would be no piracy (much less the rampant piracy we have today) as everyone would just use Netflix etc.

As for the library--again that's ONE copy (that has been paid for) that only ONE person can have at a time. With digital piracy an unlimited number of people can have a copy of the content ALL AT THE SAME TIME and they NEVEER HAVE TO RETURN it and can have a copy permanently. And each of them can pass on however many copies of that file that they want to however many people they want etc. etc.Huge difference, and that's why the comparison doesn't work. Sure the industries hate the libraries and used sales as those eat into new sales. But those have been established as legal, so they have to live with those things.

People getting and distributing digital content illegally on the internet is in no way comparable to the use of a library, beyond simply representing a lost potential sale to the publisher. I think the problem is that you're thinking of it on the individual level--compare one person who checks out a book from the library, to one who pirated the e-book. That's one lost sale, and seems comparable. That's not the issue. The issue is the people who get an e-book/digital movie/music etc. and put it on the internet for an unlimited number of people to download etc. That's what needs cracked down on--the big time uploaders/distributors of pirated material.

That kind of uploading/downloading isn't comparable to a library, but much more comparable to bootlegging and theft--there's just not physical copies to be taken anymore etc. Just digital ones and lost sales, so it's not an exact comparison. Which is again why the laws etc. have to adapt to the digital age.

If there's not an adjustment we'll end up with an extreme reaction from the industries where once broad band is everywhere they stop selling even digital files and just put everything on the cloud and paying to stream content is our only option.

Much better to be preemptive and deal with piracy and adapt the legal system so we can make the transition to a fully digital era where consumers can buy digital content with no drm etc. and publishers property is protected as much as possible from digital theft.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']There's a far cry between cracking down on piracy and regulating the internet.

I don't see why anyone other than losers who pirate copyrighted material rather than paying for it would be opposed to trying to stop people from illegally uploading and downloading files.

As a social scientist it's always intrigued me how the move to digital products has lowered people's more objections to obtaining content they didn't pay for. As camoor said before, most people wouldn't think of stealing a CD, but have no moral qualms about downloading thousands of songs, or movies, or e-books etc.

And then get upset when the people who are losing money from their illegal acquisition of their materials want more regulations. That really the same thing as shop lifters complaining about being prosecuted for stealing!

In any case, cracking down on piracy isn't limiting internet freedom etc. It's stopping illegal activity that costs industries millions of dollars.[/QUOTE]

I think it needs to be pointed out that time and again ,the claims made by the film and music industry of losing 'millions of dollars' from piracy have largely been proven wrong time and time again. The numbers they claim simply dont add up.

The bigger case needs to be made at some point that the Movie industry and Music distribution companies need to ultimately accept some responsibility/culpability in this matter.

A good example is a company like Sony. They make and distribute their own movies (they distribute other film companies flicks as well)
They also make DVD burners and Blu Ray burners. And Blank DVD's and blank BD's. They make their own brand of DVD/blu ray burning software (Sony DVD Architecture Studio)

Its a common thread going all the way back to the dual cassette deck.

Am I supposed to believe that 50 gig Blank Blu rays are meant for little Timmy's birthday at ChuckECheese in 1080p???:roll:
Like when I was supposed to believe that the dual cassette deck wasnt for making dubs of the new Metallica for your friends. ...

They want to have their cake and eat it too.


If you're truly a 'Social Scientist' I'd suggest you look a little bit deeper than a clear-cut Black and white version of "its stealing".
Because its also a billion dollar a year legitimate 'industry' they had a hand in creating
 
Sure, and I said that there are things the industries need to do on their own to help reduce piracy. And you have a fair point about tape decks etc., though that's not really relevant in the digital age as they didnt' create the interent, bit torrent etc. etc.

But while the industries need to adapt, the laws also have to adapt. Industry officials can't prosecute or punish people for illegal downloads. The most they can do is gather info to turn over to the authorities. And currently things are mostly limited to civil suits etc. The law has to adapt to cover illegal downloading and uploading as we move into the digital era and those replace theft and bootlegging as the main threats to the industry.

In any case, I've said my bit. It's a lost cause trying to be anti-piracy on the net--especially on a site for cheap asses. People today have a sick sense of entitlement when it comes to things--especially digital content--and feel piracy is ok if something costs more than they think it's worth, or has DRM when bought legitimately etc. So I won't waste more time arguing it here.
 
Dont get me wrong. I'm certainly not an advocate for illegal downloading. I firmly believe that if you're like me(a self proclaimed film buff) then you should support the films you enjoy with your dollars.The same should be true for all the video game buffs.

You yourself make a good point that 'they didn't make the bit-torrent"
Right.
They created the means of production, and they created the ability to do it. For instance: My Samsung HDTV plays .MKV's(matroska) Can anyone name a product that 'records' video in matroska?

I dont think you have to be pro-torrent to realize theres something extremely wrong with the overall picture.
I dont believe that you have to change or redefine existing laws in order to keep up with changing/evolving distribution practices. Thats a misinterpretation of the situation. You'll often here that preamble in a discussion on rights "with the internet changing,..."

A good example is what Congress is trying to do with Orphaned Works. Orfan Works laws are universal and go back from time in memorial. The changes they'd like to make aren't intended to protect the individual artist(those laws already exist) Instead Congress would rather change the laws to protect corporations from the individual artist.

An equal comparison can be made here.
As Ive pointed out ,all a corporation like Sony needs to do is hand over a list of their hardware and software customers to the authorities if they'd like to see people prosecuted. They'll never do that. They want to make money coming and going. So instead the authorities(under pressure I might add from people like Sony) Go after websites like RLSlog. Websites that dont actually offer torrents,but rather collect a database of them.

Its simply a pass of the buck to keep dirt off of them.

They simply cant wash their hands of the situation and say "We didn't create the bit-torrent".It reminds me of the war-cry from the rights ole chant: "Guns dont kill people , people kill people"
Well, an AK47 was designed and built to do one thing :kill people.

In their hands its more like: "Everything we're doing is legal ,.. you, the end user of our line of products, you're the true culprit".
 
Legal definitions of theft involve taking from another without consent or knowledge. They're by and large satisfied even if there is no physical loss on the end of the original owner.

But suppose I'm wrong. Suppose it can't legally be defined as theft. Big deal; rewrite the law, then. Most states couldn't prosecute cyberstalking a decade and a half ago because their legal definition involved some concept of physical proximity to the person being stalked - the problem was that technology changed how we can communicate with and harass people. People were able to stalk without violating the law, because they could do so without violating the legal definition of the law. In response to societal changes, then, the laws changed in many states.

So if it is a problem (and I don't think it is), change how we define theft.

Additionally, laws need to reflect a reasonable level of punishment. Allowing the RIAA to determine the monetary value of a commodity after the fact in civil court has made otherwise reasonable people absolutely nutty when it comes to their stance on supporting criminal prosecution of theft. They don't want the law extended to affect them to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars they can't afford to pay in fines. They see prosecuting laws as having a lifelong monetary effect on them. I think that's reasonable to ask that fines be controlled or reduced so that they are actually payable by those prosecuted in civil court.

I think Sporadic is a nuisance and a person with dreadful reasoning skills (and someone I have on ignore, but I've seen his line of logic on this issue elsewhere and in y'all's quotes), but I'd rather he face a fine he can actually afford rather than live a life of indentured servitude because they found that he has 100GB (or whatever) of music he did not purchase legally.

If you're going to increase enforcement of the law, the commensurate fines must be reduced for thieving end-users.

Also, camoor's point about people's knowledge (or lack of) for receiving copyrighted materials is okay, I guess. But not knowing the law is not a sufficient excuse to justify violating it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Legal definitions of theft involve taking from another without consent or knowledge. They're by and large satisfied even if there is no physical loss on the end of the original owner.

But suppose I'm wrong. Suppose it can't legally be defined as theft. Big deal; rewrite the law, then. Most states couldn't prosecute cyberstalking a decade and a half ago because their legal definition involved some concept of physical proximity to the person being stalked - the problem was that technology changed how we can communicate with and harass people. People were able to stalk without violating the law, because they could do so without violating the legal definition of the law. In response to societal changes, then, the laws changed in many states.

So if it is a problem (and I don't think it is), change how we define theft.

Additionally, laws need to reflect a reasonable level of punishment. Allowing the RIAA to determine the monetary value of a commodity after the fact in civil court has made otherwise reasonable people absolutely nutty when it comes to their stance on supporting criminal prosecution of theft. They don't want the law extended to affect them to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars they can't afford to pay in fines. They see prosecuting laws as having a lifelong monetary effect on them. I think that's reasonable to ask that fines be controlled or reduced so that they are actually payable by those prosecuted in civil court.

I think Sporadic is a nuisance and a person with dreadful reasoning skills (and someone I have on ignore, but I've seen his line of logic on this issue elsewhere and in y'all's quotes), but I'd rather he face a fine he can actually afford rather than live a life of indentured servitude because they found that he has 100GB (or whatever) of music he did not purchase legally.

If you're going to increase enforcement of the law, the commensurate fines must be reduced for thieving end-users.

Also, camoor's point about people's knowledge (or lack of) for receiving copyrighted materials is okay, I guess. But not knowing the law is not a sufficient excuse to justify violating it.[/QUOTE]

what funny about sporadic is that he, and people like him, clamors for change of the DMCA to better fit todays reality. but when/if the DMCA is changed it will be done in favor of the music/movie/tv etc industries and torrents and file sharing will still be illegal. if anything they might even be easier to prosecute. sure the fines might be more realistic, you know $100 instead of $100k, but to think that people wouldnt be taken to court over it, well thats just silly.
 
Yep, you both hit the nail on the head. It's not at all complicated to change the theft laws (if even needed) to cover digital files.

And any changes in these laws are never going to favor piracy as piracy is 100% in the wrong.

Hopefully it will just get the fines to reasonable levels and get a better monitoring system in place so a much higher percentage of pirates get caught and punished--after all all the studies on deterrence tend to find that the certainty of punishment has a much stronger impact than the severity. :D
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I think Sporadic is a nuisance and a person with dreadful reasoning skills (and someone I have on ignore, but I've seen his line of logic on this issue elsewhere and in y'all's quotes), but I'd rather he face a fine he can actually afford rather than live a life of indentured servitude because they found that he has 100GB (or whatever) of music he did not purchase legally.
[/QUOTE]

Oh hey, we have something in common. Also the magic number is 359 but I'm big fan of live bootlegs and a decent amount is legal so who knows.

[quote name='RAMSTORIA']what funny about sporadic is that he, and people like him, clamors for change of the DMCA to better fit todays reality. but when/if the DMCA is changed it will be done in favor of the music/movie/tv etc industries and torrents and file sharing will still be illegal. if anything they might even be easier to prosecute. sure the fines might be more realistic, you know $100 instead of $100k, but to think that people wouldnt be taken to court over it, well thats just silly.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say anything about amending the DMCA or anything of the sort. It doesn't phase me. I'll do what I want regardless. They clearly go after the very top or the very bottom and even if they did sue me, whatever. I don't think I'll ever make a trillion dollars in my lifetime. :lol:

[quote name='EdRyder']I firmly believe that if you're like me(a self proclaimed film buff) then you should support the films you enjoy with your dollars.[/QUOTE]

And that's where I stand. I put as many of my dollars as I can spare into the hands of artists/companies I enjoy. If I can't pay the normal way, I'll do my best to spread the word about their product.

Trying to blame profits not going up or the market leveling off on piracy is stupid. Those people will always be out there and the best you will ever be able to do is to drive them underground. Take down EliteTorrents, OiNK pops up. Take down OiNK, What and Waffles appear. Take down the torrent sites, people go to third party hosts. Take down the third party hosts, people go back home to newsgroups. Take down the newsgroups, welcome back to the days of disc/hard drive trading through the post office.

They are spending millions of dollars and destroying lives for little to no gain, in the hopes that their market will stay the same cash cow it currently is.

The best these companies can do is put out a quality product, treat their customers with respect and hope that the courtesy it is returned enough where they can continue to do business the way that they want.
 
See, I'm not buyin' it.
The concept that laws need to be changed to protect consumers in an evolving form of international/ digital commerce is frankly, a sham. The laws exist for the consumer, they'd like to augment them to protect the corporations.
Someone up top brought up cyberstalking as an example. And its a good example indeed. What you need to remember is: States went to work to protect the citizen from threats of violence or rape. They sure the hell didnt go to work to make sure that AOL.com wasn't subject to prosecution when someone was the recipient of cyberstalking via their services.

It gets to this point every time.I've had this argument over and over and over again. I compare it to a 'Whats the matter with Kansas" scenario. Where you, the consumer, are rallying for a cause that goes against your own personal interests. They dont need you on their side. They have high paid lawyers and all the campaign funds a pocket can stuff. But me, a fellow citizen and consumer, I do need you on my side.

Their 'end game' is nothing like what you all seem to think it is. Do you believe they're going to successfully prosecute everyone? Do you believe they're going to implement fine after fine and create a 'deterrent' that might prevent people from breaking the law? Hell, do you believe the money they've spent thus far on this endeavor ,and all the money they'll spend on this in the future comes close to what they could make if they just jumped on the bandwagon and offered an 'alternative/legal' form of downloading their products?

Its just not what they want (take what I was saying about orphaned works earlier as an example)

Their ultimate goal is to 'deform' how the government traditionally views 'ownership' in America.
You allow them to go down this road and not fight them on it, you'll find yourself in a place (in our own lifetimes) where, you will purchase goods and services and products, but you wont necessarily 'own' those goods or products.
 
[quote name='EdRyder']The bigger case needs to be made at some point that the Movie industry and Music distribution companies need to ultimately accept some responsibility/culpability in this matter.[/QUOTE]

I think that to some extent the movie industry has. Netflix is a fantastic service for a very reasonable price. All the movies and tv shows I can stream for 9 bucks a month? Unbelievable.

I honestly can't see the movie industry of a decade ago going with this plan. I think it's time to understand we've won and grow up. At least as regards to movies.

I also think the movie industry needs to give it up. If someone isn't willing to part with 10 bucks a month for all the movies they can see, them that guy isn't going to pay a red cent either way. The movie industry was never going to make that money anyway, they need to let it go. The movie industry is tilting at windmills, which wouldn't bother me so much if they weren't including the fed (and my tax dollars) in their insanity.
 
[quote name='camoor'][...]car owners should get a lojack.[/QUOTE]

But then the pirates will just complain that the cars with lojacks are harder to operate legally and therefore they steal them so they can remove the lojack and make them easier to use. [/DRM]
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']what funny about sporadic is that he, and people like him, clamors for change of the DMCA to better fit todays reality. but when/if the DMCA is changed it will be done in favor of the music/movie/tv etc industries and torrents and file sharing will still be illegal. if anything they might even be easier to prosecute. sure the fines might be more realistic, you know $100 instead of $100k, but to think that people wouldnt be taken to court over it, well thats just silly.[/QUOTE]

The DMCA is deeply flawed and needs change. Good luck in the Corptocracy of America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top