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

[quote name='EdRyder']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.
[/QUOTE]

People always think about corporations here.

Why not think about people. Why not think about the author trying to make a living losing a few bucks when someone pirates an e-book instead of buying it? Or other individual level scenarios like that.

Piracy doesn't just hurt the big, evil corporations. It hurts the individual people creating the content as well.

There's just no justification for it. If you like something and want to enjoy it, pay for it. Or get it from a library, or borrow it from a friend etc. Or do without it. There's no justification for going out and stealing a copy of something that you can keep for good and not compensate the owner of the content for it.

You get the same benefit as if you'd paid for the content (own a copy of it) while the content owners get nothing. Put yourself in the creator's shoes and see if you'd feel the same about piracy or not having a need for the laws to change to protect copyright holder's rights.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']You get the same benefit as if you'd paid for the content (own a copy of it) while the content owners get nothing. Put yourself in the creator's shoes and see if you'd feel the same about piracy or not having a need for the laws to change to protect copyright holder's rights.[/QUOTE]

The thing is a growing number of artists don't agree with you. Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails admitted to having a OiNK account. Benn Jordan of The Flashbulb currently has a What account where he uploads his own music. Big Boi leaked out tracks featuring Andre 3000 when Andre's record label blocked him releasing it on his solo album.

Piracy is free advertising for musicians. The more people that hear their stuff, the more people that will potentially become fans, show up at a live show (where artists make their real money), or buy a t-shirt/etc. I know you think that people who can get something for free won't pay but just look at Eminem's Recovery. Leaked two weeks early, big news of it everywhere...still sold 741,000 CDs and 255,000 digital copies.

For directors and authors, they seem happy enough that people are seeing their work. Most are doing it for themselves. Of course, they still hope people will support them and pay for it but if they don't, it isn't the end of the world.

I am currently planning to put together a documentary. When I'm done (realistically a few years from now), I want as many people as possible to see it and the tentative plan is that I'll try to exploit the pirate scene instead of trying to find a small distributor. If I make back the initial investment I put in, fantastic. If I could some how turn that into a living, dream come true. If I don't, well, I was doing it for me.

I also find this funny.

[quote name='dmaul1114']There's just no justification for it. If you like something and want to enjoy it, pay for it. Or get it from a library, or borrow it from a friend etc. Or do without it. [/QUOTE]

If I check it out from a library or buy it used or borrow it from a friend, the artist still isn't getting any compensation from me. What makes that morally right in your mind?

-------------

[quote name='2007']What do you think about OiNK being shut down?
Trent Reznor: I'll admit I had an account there and frequented it quite often. At the end of the day, what made OiNK a great place was that it was like the world's greatest record store. Pretty much anything you could ever imagine, it was there, and it was there in the format you wanted. If OiNK cost anything, I would certainly have paid, but there isn't the equivalent of that in the retail space right now. iTunes kind of feels like Sam Goody to me. I don't feel cool when I go there. I'm tired of seeing John Mayer's face pop up. I feel like I'm being hustled when I visit there, and I don't think their product is that great. DRM, low bit rate, etc. Amazon has potential, but none of them get around the issue of pre-release leaks. And that's what's such a difficult puzzle at the moment. If your favorite band in the world has a leaked record out, do you listen to it or do you not listen to it? People on those boards, they're grateful for the person that uploaded it — they're the hero. They're not stealing it because they're going to make money off of it; they're stealing it because they love the band. I'm not saying that I think OiNK is morally correct, but I do know that it existed because it filled a void of what people want.[/QUOTE]

------------

Benn Jordan on piracy and iTunes ripping him off.

http://torrentfreak.com/pirated-by-itunes-artist-turns-to-bittorrent-080206/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's moot anyway as any artist can choose to give away their material for free.

Piracy happens with those who choose to sell it and don't want to give it away for free.

Any musician, author etc. that thinks free file sharing builds their market is free to not sign with a publisher and give away their content free on the net.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's moot anyway as any artist can choose to give away their material for free.

Piracy happens with those who choose to sell it and don't want to give it away for free.

Any musician, author etc. that thinks free file sharing builds their market is free to not sign with a publisher and give away their content free on the net.[/QUOTE]

Man up and answer the real question.

[quote name='Sporadic']I also find this funny.

[quote name='dmaul1114']There's just no justification for it. If you like something and want to enjoy it, pay for it. Or get it from a library, or borrow it from a friend etc. Or do without it. [/QUOTE]

If I check it out from a library or buy it used or borrow it from a friend, the artist still isn't getting any compensation from me. What makes that morally right in your mind?[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='Sporadic']If I check it out from a library or buy it used or borrow it from a friend, the artist still isn't getting any compensation from me. What makes that morally right in your mind?[/QUOTE]

You clearly don't believe that it is different, but I think the difference is obvious. If you borrow it from a library or a friend, there is only one copy out there to be enjoyed at a time. You and your friend can't both listen to a record you are borrowing. If you want that luxury, you can by yourself a copy. Same with the library.
 
[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.[/QUOTE]
Only if you are profiting. Personal use is 100% outside the scope of the criminal code. It was NEVER NEVER NEVER meant to be a crime.

It is not a crime. Period. Let that sink in (I'm not pickin on you bv), all of you. COPYRIGHT VIOLATION NOT INVOLVING PROFIT IS NOT A CRIME. It is a civil act that is pursued in civil cases by the interested parties claiming losses.

Next, copyright violation IS NOT theft. Theft is an explicitly violent act. Copyright violation, despite the laughably absurd public relations assault by aggressive IP holders, is not theft. Period.
[quote name='dmaul1114']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.[/quote]
Your friend is just as liable as someone that uploads a song to a torrent. Period.

This is the problem with the system. We rationalize it like a torrenter is a bad guy because they know what they're doing, but the CD ripper knows exactly what they are doing as well. Both are liable. There is no distinction, philosophically or in the eyes of civil law. They are liable, period. And if it's the case that we're supportive of going after torrenters/newsgroups/whoever using federal funds, we should be equally supportive of using federal funds to check origins of every single mp3/flac/etc. on every drive everywhere. You did not pay for the right to place shift and you are liable. But it's ok! He only "stole" a little bit! Right?
[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]
There is no middle ground and you'll never get it from them. They have had decades now to adjust and they've clearly come down on the side of draconian corporatism.
[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]
When I want good information on what's going on, I read Ray Beckerman and Torrentfreak. Their analysis is rock solid.
[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.[/quote]
You sassy thing. :D
[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]
It's always been here. In the 80s, everyone had a gigantic library of VHS tapes. Copies of everything from movies to taped television. All 100% copyright violations. Before that it was taking ideas via IP infringement. Shit, our entire technological world is built on someone snaking IP, improving it, and releasing it.
[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]
If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear, right?
[quote name='dmaul1114']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.[/quote]
Or: they could do what businesses do and innovate and add value. I knowingly consume exactly 1 DRM platform. Steam. They add massive value by allowing multiple computers to download copies as long as the user owns access, so you can "take it with you" to the next computer. They promote indie shops and drive down the cost of games. They integrate social platforms. Etc, etc, etc. Steam should be what every digital media platform strives to be. Music and movies would sooner cut your throat than allow that. They want you to buy your movie on a 360 and then buy it again on your PS3 and then buy it again when Xbox 720/PS5 come out. Netflix is the only thing coming close and look at us rave about it.
[quote name='dmaul1114']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.[/QUOTE]
That will never happen. NEVER NEVER NEVER. There is more money to be made by doing it the way they are than going no DRM. Pirates will never pay, but YOU will pay 4 times for the PS3/Hulu/360/Wii/computer/DVD/Blu Ray access. So they're just going to milk you.
[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/quote]
They ask for those damages. It's 100% them. Requiring the government to step in and protect people being sued for damages on a civil issue where they are actually liable is misguided. Let them eat cake! Sue everyone for a billion dollars!
[quote name='dmaul1114']People always think about corporations here.

Why not think about people. Why not think about the author trying to make a living losing a few bucks when someone pirates an e-book instead of buying it? Or other individual level scenarios like that.[/quote]
Cory Doctorow seems to be doing just fine. And he isn't the only one.

Our entire existence is built on IP infringement. From Tesla to Modest Mouse, fantastic contributory work has come from questionable IP origins. Even the companies now most vested in IP are themselves almost always built on or maintain market position via IP infringement. At the VERY least, they pervert our system to protect their interests through the wholesale purchase of legislators (Democrats, you scum sucking fuckers, I'm looking at you).

Just ask the two strongest software companies in the world, Apple and Microsoft.

The only reason our world looks the way it does is because of Sony v. Universal. If not for that case, you'd only be allowed to buy media players made only by media creators. You'd have to buy a Disney player to watch Disney movies. You'd have to buy an EMG player to listen to EMG tunes. Nothing would work with anything else. And the personal computer would have been brutally murdered in its infancy. There would be no codecs, no internet as we know it (it's used for infringement!), no electronics in any way resembling what we have now.

There's always a punch line. Record companies release compilation albums and "forget" to get licenses or pay royalties. 300,000 songs, already released by companies without proper IP license, are "pending" licensing even though the albums were pressed and sold without consent.

300,000 x $20k per infringement = $6,000,000,000. lolwut?
http://www.thestar.com/business/art...rd-industry-faces-liability-over-infringement

Will they pay? Of course not.

There are plenty of ways to reach out to new content creators. Reward the ones that give you what you want.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Next, copyright violation IS NOT theft. Theft is an explicitly violent act. Copyright violation, despite the laughably absurd public relations assault by aggressive IP holders, is not theft. Period."

Elaborate on that point, please. I don't agree in the slightest, either in that theft is inherently a violent act or that piracy ≠ theft.
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']You clearly don't believe that it is different, but I think the difference is obvious. If you borrow it from a library or a friend, there is only one copy out there to be enjoyed at a time. You and your friend can't both listen to a record you are borrowing. If you want that luxury, you can by yourself a copy. Same with the library.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, I already explained that earlier. A library is one copy that is BORROWED and only one person can have it at a time.

With digital piracy you can keep the copy for ever, and an infinite number of people can download it from the source and possess it simultaneously and indefinitely.
 
[quote name='speedracer']
Your friend is just as liable as someone that uploads a song to a torrent. Period.

This is the problem with the system. We rationalize it like a torrenter is a bad guy because they know what they're doing, but the CD ripper knows exactly what they are doing as well. Both are liable. There is no distinction, philosophically or in the eyes of civil law. They are liable, period. And if it's the case that we're supportive of going after torrenters/newsgroups/whoever using federal funds, we should be equally supportive of using federal funds to check origins of every single mp3/flac/etc. on every drive everywhere. You did not pay for the right to place shift and you are liable. But it's ok! He only "stole" a little bit! Right?
[/QUOTE]


I wasn't meaning to imply that burning CDs etc. isn't wrong. It is, and I don't burn cds for friends. I tell them to buy their own.

I was just saying that there's not much way to legitimately crack down on the kind of behavior. While companies/authorities can monitor the internet and detect illegal downloads and uploads.

So realistically any move to criminalizing copyright violation (without profit) would end up primarily focusing on big time uploaders and downloaders who are easy to detect.
 
I think the distinction some of them are trying to make, though, is that they're able to make copies w/ the library material. Borrow, rip to iTunes, return to library, nobody is the wiser.

So they would then argue that the technique is what is being unfairly criminalized, because one is easier to monitor b/c your IP and/or MAC addresses are tied to the criminal activity.

They aren't able to see your point and mr unoriginal's point that borrowing from the library = borrowing for use, not borrowing to make a permanent copy.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I think the distinction some of them are trying to make, though, is that they're able to make copies w/ the library material. Borrow, rip to iTunes, return to library, nobody is the wiser.

So they would then argue that the technique is what is being unfairly criminalized, because one is easier to monitor b/c your IP and/or MAC addresses are tied to the criminal activity.

They aren't able to see your point and mr unoriginal's point that borrowing from the library = borrowing for use, not borrowing to make a permanent copy.[/QUOTE]

I haven't seen that argument--if that's what they're getting at, then sure borrowing and copying is illegal and should be punished if detected.

As I said in my last response to speedracer, piracy is wrong regardless of format. Doesn't matter if it's burning a cd for a friend, ripping a cd you checked out from the library, or downloading from a torrent etc. All should be criminalized IMO. But again realistically the downloads are what will get caught and punished since they happen in cyberspace and can be detected much easier than someone burning a cd in their home etc.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']"Next, copyright violation IS NOT theft. Theft is an explicitly violent act. Copyright violation, despite the laughably absurd public relations assault by aggressive IP holders, is not theft. Period."

Elaborate on that point, please. I don't agree in the slightest, either in that theft is inherently a violent act or that piracy ≠ theft.[/QUOTE]
Sure. Dowling v. United States:
Holding
Copies of copyrighted works cannot be regarded as stolen property for the purposes of a prosecution under a statute criminalizing the interstate transportation of such property.

The language of § 2314 does not "plainly and unmistakably" cover such conduct. The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of § 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright, nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
Click to expand...
Copyright violation does not prevent use, nor does it preclude the holder from being made whole. By legal definition, theft victims cannot be made whole even if you return the item. To borrow the analogy already batted around, even if your stolen car is returned you can never be made whole because you were prevented from using it for a period of time. There's nothing remotely similar in a copyright violation.
 
True, but again that's an example of a dated law that doesn't really fit digital products. I don't know that it will change, but as we move to have more digital products and fewer physical in some industries, we need laws about illegal downloads. Whether it's going the route I want and criminalizing those as well as making physical copies (and thus overturning that Dowling decision) or ruling that downloading a file is the same as making a physical copy and thus not a crime.
 
i just wikipedia'd the dowling case. this guy was selling bootlegs of live performances. NOT copies of commercially distributed music.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']As I said in my last response to speedracer, piracy is wrong regardless of format. Doesn't matter if it's burning a cd for a friend, ripping a cd you checked out from the library, or downloading from a torrent etc. All should be criminalized IMO. But again realistically the downloads are what will get caught and punished since they happen in cyberspace and can be detected much easier than someone burning a cd in their home etc.[/QUOTE]
It's not just burning for a friend. Buying a CD does not allow you to legally rip it. You're acting against the license and you're in violation. Only because they have bigger fish to fry have they not come down on this stuff, but it exactly the same "crime".

They said as much in Atlantic v. Howell.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']i just wikipedia'd the dowling case. this guy was selling bootlegs of live performances. NOT copies of commercially distributed music.[/QUOTE]
Right, but that's not the question being asked before the court. He was convicted. The question is whether copyright violation is theft.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari only as to Dowling's convictions for interstate transportation of stolen property.[2] The Court, in an opinion by Justice Blackmun, held that a copyrighted musical composition impressed on a bootleg phonograph record is not property that is "stolen, converted, or taken by fraud" within the meaning of the Stolen Property Act. Justice Blackmun emphasized that cases prosecuted under Sec. 2314 had traditionally involved "physical 'goods, wares [or] merchandise.'" The statute "seems clearly to contemplate a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods" Id at 216. In Dowling's case there was no evidence "that Dowling wrongfully came by the phonorecords actually shipped or the physical materials from which they were made." Dowling, supra at 214.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='speedracer']It's not just burning for a friend. Buying a CD does not allow you to legally rip it. You're acting against the license and you're in violation. Only because they have bigger fish to fry have they not come down on this stuff, but it exactly the same "crime".

They said as much in Atlantic v. Howell.[/QUOTE]


Fair enough if that's the case. My understanding was that was only true of DVDs/Blu Rays as they have encryption that has to be cracked to rip or make copies--and it's cracking the encryption that's illegal. While with CDs you were allowed to make backup copies for yourself.

But I know your a law guy, so I'll take your word for it. And in that case it's just another example of laws needing updated. One should be able to rip a cd they buy, burn a copy for their car etc. That needs to be specified as legitimate use as it's not costing any sales as people aren't going to buy a CD and MP3s of an album etc.

All that should be illegal is: 1) distributing copies to others while keeping the original or copies for yourself, 2) getting a copy illegally (from a friend, torrent site) etc.

So again, current copyright law is woefully inadequate/outdated for the digital age.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Exactly, I already explained that earlier. A library is one copy that is BORROWED and only one person can have it at a time.

With digital piracy you can keep the copy for ever, and an infinite number of people can download it from the source and possess it simultaneously and indefinitely.[/QUOTE]

What about buying used? I can buy a used copy of Clerks off of Craigslist for $3 and it is mine forever. Kevin Smith doesn't get any money from that. So, why is that ok?

Same with borrowing from a friend. If my friend loans me a copy of Godfather, nobody gets any money and I get to enjoy a fantastic movie. Why is that ok? Isn't that stealing from Paramount, Al Pacino and Francis Ford Coppola? A lost sale?

If I was unable to buy used or rent from the library or borrow from a friend, wouldn't I have bought that item?

[quote name='mykevermin']They aren't able to see your point and mr unoriginal's point that borrowing from the library = borrowing for use, not borrowing to make a permanent copy.[/QUOTE]

So, is it ok for me to download the latest Breaking Bad episode as long as I delete it after I watch it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Buying used (or borrowing) is still only one copy being possessed by one person at a time. And there are legal protections allowing people to sell items they no longer want as long as they don't keep a copy for themselves. Same with lending, fine as long as you don't have a copy to use while your's is lent out.

So yeah, watching something then deleting is more permissible as it's more on par with using the library or borrowing. Just illegal as the law doesn't allow that currently.

But that could change. For instance with e-books many libraries allow check out of e-books. Only one person can have each title at a time, they expire and can't be read after the checkout period if not renewed etc.

Maybe we'll see something like that for movies, music etc. eventually as well--though probably not TV as the streaming sites take care of that. But we may see libraries etc. offer free movies for streaming online etc. eventually.


But in any case, you are finally getting at the biggest part of the problem--getting content without paying for it AND KEEPING it. Getting it illegally is still wrong of course, but the real problem is people keeping it, giving it to others etc. as they get the benefits of ownership without paying, take away other potential sales by passing out copies etc.

The person who downloads a show, watches it once and deletes it and never gives a copy to anyone isn't much different from someone who checked it out form the library or borrows it from a friend etc. No benefits of ownership there, just have a copy temporarily. Illegal currently, but not nearly as morally wrong as getting copies illegally and keeping them and/or distributing them IMO.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Fair enough if that's the case. My understanding was that was only true of DVDs/Blu Rays as they have encryption that has to be cracked to rip or make copies--and it's cracking the encryption that's illegal. While with CDs you were allowed to make backup copies for yourself.

But I know your a law guy, so I'll take your word for it. And in that case it's just another example of laws needing updated. One should be able to rip a cd they buy, burn a copy for their car etc. That needs to be specified as legitimate use as it's not costing any sales as people aren't going to buy a CD and MP3s of an album etc.[/quote]
Having an encryption cracking program to crack the encryption scheme for personal use is not illegal. Writing software that does so is. So if you have the software, someone has committed a crime. It's the weird world we live it.
All that should be illegal is: 1) distributing copies to others while keeping the original or copies for yourself, 2) getting a copy illegally (from a friend, torrent site) etc.

So again, current copyright law is woefully inadequate/outdated for the digital age.
Click to expand...
I'm a huge fair use guy. I think the model is added value. Make me want to give you my money. Lord knows we want to consume quality IP.
 
Agreed. Fair use laws need updated/clarified for the digital age, just like the copyright laws have to adapt to deal specifically with internet piracy.

There has to be give on both sides with publishers giving legitimate owners more fair use rights (no DRM, no hassle about making copies as long as you keep the original etc.) while there also needs to be a move to criminalize piracy and come up with a better system of detecting it and enforcing the new laws.

And to be clear I'm not talking draconian penalites. By criminalizing it I'd want to see the punishment fit the crime--unlike the crazy civil settlements currently. Fines should be something like current MSRP of the content in question plus a 5-10% penalty.
 
You know what? fuck it. This conversation has been on the 'net billions of times, and even on this site a few dozen.

The same people argue the same shit over and over. It's absolutely worthless. Nothing ever changes.

The Humble Indie Bundle that was running around a few weeks ago was an effort by a few indie companies to A) get a little money for their own work and B) get some charitable profits by allowing people to set their own price.

25% of the downloads were pirated.

THE.
GAME.
IS.
fuckING.
OVER.

And all that's going to happen is the same stupid entrenched bullshit from the pirates vs the MPAA/RIAA or whatever, each side fully blaming the other for their actions, both continuing their stupid little power plays for the rest of eternity, fucking over people like me and the rest of the general public who feel that the idea of having something-for-nothing is a weird fucked up policy if said something exists in retail channels to be obtained monetarily. And we'll get condescension from the pirates and hateful misdirected retribution from the official companies. Makes me want to skullfuck both sides to hell.

So fuck it. Don't even have this conversation, because NO ONE is going to change their minds, and the same STUPID illogical bullshit is going to flood over ten times before the thread is finally run into the ground, to be resurrected at some time in the future for more piles of bullshit.

It is amazing that one of the tried and true tenants is I'M NOT HURTING ANYBODY BY PIRATING. And then I see Hulu start charging, more advertising everywhere, annoying DRM procedures, and all the other fucking things that *I* have to deal with because some idiots justify their actions with logic that makes my balls hurt.
 
Obama administration wants to stop piracy.


Good luck, you won't. Ever. The internet is like a thief of steroids, and you'll never, ever stop or even dent piracy. Not without numerous unwarranted invasions of piracy.
We've spent 25 billion dollars on the drug war this year, and I can still go buy any drug I want and feel completely safe.

I sure as hell hope Piracy doesn't become the 21st century War on Drugs. That's not going to end well, and it's wasting more money we would better allocate elsewhere.
 
[quote name='Strell']You know what? fuck it. This conversation has been on the 'net billions of times, and even on this site a few dozen.

The same people argue the same shit over and over. It's absolutely worthless. Nothing ever changes.

The Humble Indie Bundle that was running around a few weeks ago was an effort by a few indie companies to A) get a little money for their own work and B) get some charitable profits by allowing people to set their own price.

25% of the downloads were pirated.

THE.
GAME.
IS.
fuckING.
OVER.

And all that's going to happen is the same stupid entrenched bullshit from the pirates vs the MPAA/RIAA or whatever, each side fully blaming the other for their actions, both continuing their stupid little power plays for the rest of eternity, fucking over people like me and the rest of the general public who feel that the idea of having something-for-nothing is a weird fucked up policy if said something exists in retail channels to be obtained monetarily. And we'll get condescension from the pirates and hateful misdirected retribution from the official companies. Makes me want to skullfuck both sides to hell.

So fuck it. Don't even have this conversation, because NO ONE is going to change their minds, and the same STUPID illogical bullshit is going to flood over ten times before the thread is finally run into the ground, to be resurrected at some time in the future for more piles of bullshit.[/QUOTE]

So what exactly are you saying here?
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']So what exactly are you saying here?[/QUOTE]
What I grasp: Debate on this subject is unreasonable because we're all close minded about the subject. :whistle2:#

idea of having something-for-nothing is a weird fucked up policy if said something exists in retail channels to be obtained monetarily.
Click to expand...
It's so weird to not want to pay for something, or want something for free, or not be able to afford something, etc. The rationale exists, though it's validity is debatable. Still, it's a rationale and the idea that "why get something for free when you can pay for it" seems even more far out to me.
 
Wanting something for nothing isn't weird. Thinking it's ok to take something because you don't want to pay for it and thinking there's nothing wrong with it is what's weird--and I think that's what Strell was getting at.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Wanting something for nothing isn't weird. Thinking it's ok to take something because you don't want to pay for it and thinking there's nothing wrong with it is what's weird--and I think that's what Strell was getting at.[/QUOTE]
Still, the rationale exists and anyone who's ever lived off 900 bucks a month can understand it. :V
 
[quote name='dorino']Still, the rationale exists and anyone who's ever lived off 900 bucks a month can understand it. :V[/QUOTE]

Why is this a justification.

Why.

What is i don't even
 
[quote name='Strell']Why is this a justification.

Why.

What is i don't even[/QUOTE]

Becuase we're Americans goddamit. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 50 Cent's 0-day release makes me real fucking happy.
 
[quote name='Strell']Why is this a justification.

Why.

What is i don't even[/QUOTE]
it's a justification because people want it.

That's all there is to it, and that's why you'll never end it.
 
100% agree that it will never be ended. But they can at least criminalize it, make fines proportionate to the crime (rather than the current absurd civil fines) and catch and punish more people which will cut down on some as people detect a higher risk of being caught.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']100% agree that it will never be ended. But they can at least criminalize it, make fines proportionate to the crime (rather than the current absurd civil fines) and catch and punish more people which will cut down on some as people detect a higher risk of being caught.[/QUOTE]

yup that doesn't sound like another war on our own citizens

my complaints go full circle
 
[quote name='dorino']it's a justification because people want it.[/QUOTE]

*sigh*

Some people want to rape children. Some people want to cut your tongue out and eat it with fava beans. Some people want to see what your insides look like.

And so on.

But fuck it. Dance around the circle and keep fucking up MY ability to easily obtain, use, and enjoy media.
 
[quote name='Strell']*sigh*

Some people want to rape children. Some people want to cut your tongue out and eat it with fava beans. Some people want to see what your insides look like.

And so on.

But fuck it. Dance around the circle and keep fucking up MY ability to easily obtain, use, and enjoy media.[/QUOTE]
It's because of piracy PREVENTION tactics that your media is hard to obtain and enjoy. Pirates didn't invent DRM.

The rape argument is completely bullshit. Comparing copyright infringement to pedophiles raping children or caniballism is unfounded and a cop out in and of itself.
 
Haha, ok. "It's bad argument because I say so." Prevention implies that someone is doing something to keep bad stuff from happening. In other words, YOU started it, someone is trying to finish it. Same reason people have locks on their doors - because people are fundamentally shitbags at heart and won't hesitate to walk into places they don't belong. You should have gone the full retard nine miles and AT LEAST said "retaliation" instead of "prevention," since that helps your "argument."

Awesome. And all the while this goes on, I'm getting shafted because of idiots pretending themselves to Robin Hood instead of the grubby little blind idiots they are.

Congrats, internet world, on convincing yourself of another load of bullshit to perpetuate to yourselves while you sit back pretending there are no victims when it's CLEARLY people like me paying the price for your insane douchebaggery.
 
[quote name='Strell']But fuck it. Dance around the circle and keep fucking up MY ability to easily obtain, use, and enjoy media.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Strell']It is amazing that one of the tried and true tenants is I'M NOT HURTING ANYBODY BY PIRATING. And then I see Hulu start charging, more advertising everywhere, annoying DRM procedures, and all the other fucking things that *I* have to deal with because some idiots justify their actions with logic that makes my balls hurt.[/QUOTE]

You understand that Hulu was created to try and combat piracy...and when it was a success (they were set to make $250 million dollars in 1 year from ads), they decided that $250 million wasn't enough and came up with Hulu Plus. Normal Hulu with more shows and various device access for $10 a month. I imagine it will only be a matter of time before the price goes up or that they add more ads or longer ones.

Thank greedy pig companies for what is happening, not the pirates or people. If anything, people pushing them is forcing them to innovate and come up with stuff like Hulu.

[quote name='Strell']Congrats, internet world, on convincing yourself of another load of bullshit to perpetuate to yourselves while you sit back pretending there are no victims when it's CLEARLY people like me paying the price for your insane douchebaggery.[/QUOTE]

Congrats on once again pointing your rage in the wrong direction and against your own interests. That seems to be a uniquely American trait. :lol:
 
Oh, I get it. You think you're making sense now. Joyful.

You don't think you are doing anything wrong. All the companies think you are. The companies make sweeping changes that I get caught up in the crossfire in. You continue to circumvent them, thumbing your nose and wiping your ass on all security measures, and then turn around and condescend to victims you supposedly are fighting for.

Congrats on circular logic.
 
[quote name='Strell']Oh, I get it. You think you're making sense now. Joyful.

You don't think you are doing anything wrong. All the companies think you are. The companies make sweeping changes that I get caught up in the crossfire in. You continue to circumvent them, thumbing your nose and wiping your ass on all security measures, and then turn around and condescend to victims you supposedly are fighting for.

Congrats on circular logic.[/QUOTE]

Hey, look at that. Another five-star Strell post that doesn't address or even make any sense in regards to my last post.
 
Piracy is bad, and it's also not the end of the world. Both sides need to chill out.

People who download stuff aren't bad people. Trying to make them out as everyday criminals or "shit bags" and then charging some college kid $20 mil to set an example is not the way to stop piracy.

As much as I'd like to label the people who pirate brand new videogame releases as criminals, I know they are probably just good citizens who have a bit too much power at their finger tips. When opportunities are that simple and anonymous, many people will take them.
 
I do hate how the government caved and made it more or else illegal to make backups of anything. Technically if there is no copy prevention it's still ok, but circumventing any protection is illegal. Since most everything is copy protected these days, you really can't even backup things you buy. Anything that interferes with your right to make a backup should be illegal.
 
[quote name='Strell']

Congrats, internet world, on convincing yourself of another load of bullshit to perpetuate to yourselves while you sit back pretending there are no victims when it's CLEARLY people like me paying the price for your insane douchebaggery.[/QUOTE]

With all due respect (I can see you're upset and angry)
Has it ever occurred to you that you've been paying for their 'douchebaggery' for much longer and deeper than you've been paying for the rest of us?
Just put the issue we're discussing aside for two seconds and make a simple comparison to what the government spends on the federal court system compared to criminal court. We've helped them make their billions off our backs for generations.


Now back to the overall point:
In my eyes , its the ultimate perversion of our judicial system. To think that our elected body of Representatives are required to dedicate any amount of time or effort into drafting and implementing legislation to save theoretical losses of revenue is obscene.

Are you going to write your State Senators and Congressional leadership and tell them they need to go to work and put in long hours so that in the future, a movie like Avatar can make $800 million instead of just a measly $750 million?
 
[quote name='EdRyder'] To think that our elected body of Representatives are required to dedicate any amount of time or effort into drafting and implementing legislation to save theoretical losses of revenue is obscene.[/QUOTE]
Oh god that's the best way anyone has ever put it. Lovely.

Now, Strell, the fact is, pirates will continue circumventing it. The industry hasn't a choice but to surrender and allow everyone, pirates and all, a pleasant experience, or force you to go through a shit experience. Don't try and say the MPAA is in the right. They're not, it's idiotic, greedy, and unfounded. Pulling lost revenue figures out of your ass is not grounds for a new siphon for government spending.

Go ahead and blame the pirates. Just realize that whatever you do in regards to it, it'll still be at your inconvenience. So even if you can somehow solve piracy, the prevention tactics will still hurt you.

So why bother?
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']
People who download stuff aren't bad people. Trying to make them out as everyday criminals or "shit bags" and then charging some college kid $20 mil to set an example is not the way to stop piracy.

As much as I'd like to label the people who pirate brand new videogame releases as criminals, I know they are probably just good citizens who have a bit too much power at their finger tips. When opportunities are that simple and anonymous, many people will take them.[/QUOTE]

That's going farther that I or other suggest. The problem now is that it's not a crime, but a civil matter, hence the absurd fines.

What I suggest is just making it a misdemeanor (felonies left for the people uploading or other wise distributing tons of pirated content (say over $1,000 in value or something) and make the fines fit the crime. Something like the value of the content plus a 5-10%.

As for the criminal label, you're just going to far with the meaning of it. Are shoplifters criminals? Sure. Are they bad people? Not necessarily. Same with pirates who are getting a digital product illegally without paying for it. Doesn't mean they're bad people, but also doesn't mean it shouldn't be a misdemeanor like shoplifting and have a proportionate punishment attached.
 
[quote name='EdRyder']
In my eyes , its the ultimate perversion of our judicial system. To think that our elected body of Representatives are required to dedicate any amount of time or effort into drafting and implementing legislation to save theoretical losses of revenue is obscene.
[/QUOTE]

But that's just the type of view that has to change as we enter the digital era.

Within the next century movie discs, music discs, paper books etc. are going to get extremely scarce with the majority of sells being digital files.

Thus for these industries shoplifting and other loss of tangible product is no longer a major threat, piracy and illegal downloads are the new shoplifting/bootlegging in the digital era and have to be dealt with.

I always thought the theoretical loss of sale argument was bullshit anyway. Sure a pirate wouldn't have bought everything they downloaded illegally. But by the same token you can't prove that a shoplifter would have bought everything they stole either especially since a lot of shoplifting is done on impulse and for the thrill rather than for need/want of the item.

The two (shoplifting/theft and piracy) are different only in that a store isn't losing a physical product, but the end result is the same. A person gets to enjoy ownership of product without compensating a store and the creator of the content for it.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But that's just the type of view that has to change as we enter the digital era.

Within the next century movie discs, music discs, paper books etc. are going to get extremely scarce with the majority of sells being digital files.

Thus for these industries shoplifting and other loss of tangible product is no longer a major threat, piracy and illegal downloads are the new shoplifting/bootlegging in the digital era and have to be dealt with.

I always thought the theoretical loss of sale argument was bullshit anyway. Sure a pirate wouldn't have bought everything they downloaded illegally. But by the same token you can't prove that a shoplifter would have bought everything they stole either especially since a lot of shoplifting is done on impulse and for the thrill rather than for need/want of the item.

The two (shoplifting/theft and piracy) are different only in that a store isn't losing a physical product, but the end result is the same. A person gets to enjoy ownership of product without compensating a store and the creator of the content for it.[/QUOTE]
The revenue losses the industry pulls out of its ass are what's bullshit. There is no major loss of revenue; It's not a priority by any means, and shouldn't be. We have better things to do with federal spending.

Shoplifting is NOT piracy, Piracy is NOT shoplifting. The differences don't end at the physical product. it's an entirely different realm; and trying to say the laws are outdated to the digital era while saying that shoplifting and piracy are one in the same seems a little odd/hypocritical.
 
Not saying shoplifting and piracy are one and the same at all. I was just saying that with the move to totally digital products will end shoplifting/theft as a way companies lose product/sales.

Before the digital era the only way to illegally get a true copy of a product was to go to the store and buy it (new or used--or a library etc.) or steal it. Could get a dub from a friend etc., but that's not the exact same product.

With the digital age you have stores selling the exact same digital product that people can download illegally elsewhere. It is NOT the same as shoplifting. But it is the new threat to losing products and having people get your exact product without paying for it or at least buying it second hand etc.

But as myself and others have said, it's really a pointless debate as neither side will give an inch. I have no respect for people who pirate stuff and want a crack down, while pirates and sympathetic folk will offer excuses and justifications for why it's not wrong to acquire content without paying for it.

So we might as well just drop this debate. Wish this forum had an ignore thread feature like some others....
 
US copyright law was originally nacted with good intentions. The problem with copyright law today is the same problem with everything in politics, our legislative, executive, and to some extent judicial branch are increasingly beholden to corporations and special interests.

It's depressing but I can't think of any way in which this is going to get any better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top