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

[quote name='EdRyder']They're still kicking and screaming as far as I can tell , all the while pissing on fair use. I can point out numerous examples, like Warners music group:Their approach to youtube and cover songs from their recording artists is downright laughable not to mention the fact they've decided to boycott their songs from streaming internet radio.
The label 'draconian' is accurate.[/QUOTE]

Oh, don't mistake my point - I'm not at all saying it's bread and roses on the end of the record industry. It has historically been, and continues to be, a very contentious battle to determine new territory. I'm simply saying that pretending like the industry has not conceded anything over the years is a disingenuous argument at best.

Here's what I don't believe: the record industry has completely and thoroughly responded to changing means of commercial transactions and consumer demands

Here's what I do believe: they have responded in part, and some consumers are willing to neglect some concessions made by the marketplace in favor of continuing to commit criminal copyright infringement, all the while taking a stance of nobility that is at best misinformed, at worst willfully ignorant of how the market has changed.

Those who support piracy remind me of Republicans in terms of their tactics. At each step of the way, they declare that the market response simply isn't good enough. It's like the Republicans who said that single payer was too liberal of a policy, and every step of the way repeated the "too liberal" mantra, no matter what shape the Health Care Reform Act took. There's a significant degree of intellectual dishonesty in that approach, because it shows someone who is unwilling to be placated or make concessions. "My way or the highway" is not a framework for negotiations, contrary to what pro-piracy advocates think.
 
I don't support piracy, but I don't support the insane proposals set up to put a stop to it.

It's not going to happen, and it's only going to hurt everyone. I'd rather it just hurt profits.

Here's what I don't believe: the record industry has completely and thoroughly responded to changing means of commercial transactions and consumer demands
Click to expand...
And what, I'm sure you'd agree, little they've done has been extremely minor. DRM-free ___s are not something the industries has done out of courtesy. It's tryed to avoid that, and forces DRM-free content to generally be more expensive! (e-books, for instance) all the while continuing to lobby and complain about nonexistent/exaggerated losses to whoever will listen.

I won't say it's noble to side with pirates, but I also won't say it's even remotely reasonable to ask "What more could you want?" from the various industries who refuse to accept the internet as anything more than evil, and continue to punish all users as a (failing) tactic of prevention.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Easy to say when you're not affected by those lost profits....[/QUOTE]
Neither are they, is the thing. The profit figures they quote are literally unsourced and wrong.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Just posting the tl;dr version for anyone interested. :)[/QUOTE]
Clean up on aisle 4, Bob.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's easy, it's efficient, and the probability of being caught and prosecuted for it is incredibly low.

That's more or less why. I get why people do pirate.

What I am often shocked by are people's arguments of (1) entitlement to whatever product they want, whenever they want, and (2) that an area of high crime shouldn't be policed more.[/QUOTE]
Frankly they have two choices, they can either fight us all tooth and nail and force us to play by their rules, or they see that they're fighting a losing battle and let us have it our way. Think of it as the Burger King business model, rather than telling us no you can't enjoy that movie/music how you want, they open up and let us watch/listen however we want. Movie studios are finally letting people transfer digital copies to their computers, but there are plenty that don't come with that capability, so people rip them as they've been doing for years.

All the money spent on anti-copying measures, and what good has it done? The stuff gets cracked in less time than it takes to write the software most likely. The only people it even stops are those who don't know what software they need to bypass it, you think it stops actual pirates?
 
So, Myke has brought up several concessions made by the Record Industry to help consumers have better, cheaper access to music.

What concessions have been made by pirates to pay for all the music they've stolen?

Why does it have to be all about the music industry bending over backwards? I mean, I understand if they want to stay in business, they need to adapt - but this "adapt or we'll take what we want by force" idea that many people have just seems wrong.

[quote name='Clak']Clean up on aisle 4, Bob.[/QUOTE]

Did you make another mess? I just cleaned up your last post for everyone...
 
[quote name='Clak']All the money spent on anti-copying measures, and what good has it done? The stuff gets cracked in less time than it takes to write the software most likely. The only people it even stops are those who don't know what software they need to bypass it, you think it stops actual pirates?[/QUOTE]

Oh, of course not. There's a line of criminological thinking called 'target hardening,' and the underlying idea is not to try to change people's behavior or attitudes - but simply to make it harder to commit crimes. It tends to work in the real world - cars that used 'the club' on their steering wheel are far less likely to be stolen. That stupid red bar says to would-be car thieves "this shit is too much trouble."

In the online world, target hardening has been disastrously ineffective. It harms legit users and doesn't harm those who would steal it (e.g., those who used the Lotus office suite in the mid-1980's had to plug in a hardware 'dongle' that was required to get the software to run - legit users were fucked if they lost it, while those who cracked and pirated it never had to deal with such problems).

The difference is that time and detection are virtually infinite in digital space. Given those opportunities, target hardening is not effective. In fact, there's something enticing about new protection measures. Hacking groups and pirates take a particular sort of delight in facing new challenges and overcoming them. The recent quasi-scandal with Assassin's Creed II is another perfect example of this phenomenon and why target hardening simply doesn't work in the digital environment.

As you point out earlier in your last post, there's not really a dichotomous choice. It's not "their way" or "our way." The idea that commonly-agreed upon, negotiated mediums is indeed possible. People do want to pay for stuff. On the fringes of society you have people like Sporadic, who will continue to pirate no matter the case. You can't take anything he says at face value, because the underlying self-serving motive permeates every argument he tries to make. He's not to be believed. There are people who are willing to support artists, even if it means they have to give some money to icky big corporate labels in the process. That is the market the industry should be attempting to serve.

In the meantime, the loudest group of people complaining about monitoring piracy are surely the vocal and implacable minority of people who, like Sporadic, will steal what they want to satisfy their urges for instant gratification and immediate entertainment, like the cultural gluttons they are. That's just the squeaky wheel begging for grease. They're not to be taken seriously any more than people who might fight Henry Jenkin's "superfans" of any particular cultural median. At least not if you want to gain success to the broadest, most utilitarian cross-section of society.

iTunes may not be the answer, but something similar to it may indeed be. Above it all, the idea of policing the internet for thieves is something I'm fine with, so long as it comes with a requisite decline in civil sanctions. Yes, whatever the RIAA is claiming per song now is ridiculous, but to identify a per-song fine of, say, $5, with a civil cap of $5,000 (along with a surrendering of any infringing hardware, meaning if you pirate you give up your hard drive(s)), that's something I'd be ok with.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, Myke has brought up several concessions made by the Record Industry to help consumers have better, cheaper access to music.

What concessions have been made by pirates to pay for all the music they've stolen?[/QUOTE]

That's a pretty flawed argument. Pirates aren't one solid group made up of a few heads like music with the big four or movies with the big six.

I posted my own examples of support and was told by dmaul that I was only one guy. Myke seems to think I'm some type of super pirate that never spends any money on anything, when in reality, I, most likely, spend double the amount he does on legit entertainment.

There are multiple studies saying that pirates some of the biggest consumers.

Once again we have a study by flesh and bone researchers who have discovered that music piracy actually increases music consumption.

“Consumer Culture in Times of Crisis” was conductEd by the BI Norwegian School of Management, the largest business school in Norway and the second largest in all of Europe. The study looked at almost 2,000 online music users over the age of 15, and asked file-sharers to prove their legal music purchases rather then simply rely on their honesty.

It concludes that those who download music illegally also purchase the most number of legal digital downloads. In fact, the study reports that file-sharers actually buy 10 times as much music as they download for free.

“The most surprising thing is that the proportion of paid downloads is so high,” said BI researcher Audun Molde. “The results suggest that they are buying twice as much music as they get for free, and also those who state that they download for free actually are the greatest consumers of paid music online.”

As usual, record labels say the results are bogus. After all, one illegal download equals one last sale right? That’s what they teach in music industry school.

“There is one thing you cant explain, and it is that the consumption of music increases, while revenue declines,” says EMI record label rep Bjørn Rogstad. “It can not be explained in any way other than that the illegal downloading is over the legal sale of music. “Based on the results from the survey you might think that the free download stimulates a paid download, but here it’s tough keep the tongue straight in your mouth. Whether those who download music for free would buy the same music, it is, and is a purely hypothetical question.”

He may have trouble believing it, but I don’t. Why? Think about it. The record industry has been hammered by a number of factors, but perhaps by none more so that the bane of all decent, hard working musicians – the digital single.

A $20, grossly overpriced, physical album used to be what everyone bought and then came the digital music revolution. To make matters worse, people no longer wanted 2 good tracks and 15 of fluff. They wanted a single song, which they could suddenly get for 99 cents, less than a single dollar.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out where your profit margins headed with this new paradigm shift.

Molde also takes the music industry to task for not focusing all of its efforts on creating music delivery platforms consumers actually want.

“There should be no record industry task to prosecute those who download illegally,” he added. “They must work aggressively to create good music and make it available in legal forms. It is the legislators job to enforce copyright law.”

Without skipping a beat, Rogstad counters that the music industry isn’t wasting too much time suing file-sharers, and insists that they are working overtime to create music services people want.

“No, we are using much, much more time to develop good services, he says. “In my opinion, is not the key to fight file-sharers whatsoever, it lies with providers, the so-called ISPs.”

Moreover, the study echoes the previous conclusions of none other than the Canadian govt, which found that “P2P file-sharing tends to increase rather than decrease music purchasing.”

That report, The Impact of Music Downloads and P2P File-Sharing on the Purchase of Music: A Study For Industry Canada, was commissioned by Industry Canada, a ministry of the Canadian federal government, and includes extensive surveying on the music purchasing habits of the Canadian population.

“Our review of existing econometric studies suggests that P2P file-sharing tends to decrease music purchasing,” says the study. “However, we find the opposite, namely that P2P file-sharing tends to increase rather than decrease music purchasing.

The record industry claims to use facts and figures to support its conclusion that file-sharing is to blame for decreasing profits, but once again we see that the people it’s blaming for its woes are actually among its best customers.

If file-sharers buy 10 times as much music as their law abiding counterparts, then couldn’t you argue that suing them is actually accelerating the record industry’s decline?

Oh the irony.

However, and its something I just now considered, it’s that though the researchers ask for proof of music purchased, i.e legal music consumption, they have no way to verify illegal music consumption. A guy can say he only downloaded two songs illegally in the past month and then bought twenty, with receipts to prove it, but how do the researchers know for sure he only illegally downloaded 2 songs? P2P doesn’t provide receipts. To use an unsubstantiated claim on the one hand, and written proof on the other certainly allows one to question the study’s conclusions. As much as I like what it has to say, I’m sure we wouldn’t give the RIAA any slack if it had a study with alternative findings.
Click to expand...

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86009/study-pirates-buy-10-times-more-music-than-they-steal/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8337887.stm

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...tm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And I was just about to say, I listen to a CD before I buy it (or not.) That imo makes me a good consumer, not a "pirate".
 
You have last.fm, pandora, and grooveshark (I think) as legal alternatives to actual piracy, though. You also used to have lala. So you can't justify piracy on 'sampling' grounds.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, Myke has brought up several concessions made by the Record Industry to help consumers have better, cheaper access to music.

What concessions have been made by pirates to pay for all the music they've stolen?

Why does it have to be all about the music industry bending over backwards? I mean, I understand if they want to stay in business, they need to adapt - but this "adapt or we'll take what we want by force" idea that many people have just seems wrong.



Did you make another mess? I just cleaned up your last post for everyone...[/QUOTE]
Here's an idea, you stop being an ass. I know that incredibly difficult, but just keep saying "I think I can, I think I can."
 
[quote name='DrSodaberg']And I was just about to say, I listen to a CD before I buy it (or not.) That imo makes me a good consumer, not a "pirate".[/QUOTE]
I actually miss music stores that allowed you to try a CD before buying. Some small independent places still do, but the chains that did are all gone.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You have last.fm, pandora, and grooveshark (I think) as legal alternatives to actual piracy, though. You also used to have lala. So you can't justify piracy on 'sampling' grounds.[/QUOTE]

Last.FM doesn't do full tracks anymore.
Pandora doesn't do full albums.
Grooveshark, while awesome, doesn't appear to be legit.
Grooveshark is a rich Internet application, written in ActionScript using the Adobe Flex framework which runs in Adobe Flash. Its design implements various sliding panels to categorize and display lists of information, similar in style to that of the Apple iPhone. A right-aligned black modal window also slides in to display more information for songs, playlists, and users. Grooveshark also lets users upload music to their online music library through a Java Web Start application. The upload program scans folders specified for MP3s, uploading and adding them to the user's online library on the service. The ID3 information of the uploaded song is linked to the user and the file is uploaded to Grooveshark which allows on-demand music playback. Collectively, each user's uploaded library is available to any user of Grooveshark. All content on the service is user-sourced.

The website also allows users to upload music files on their hard drive to the search database, resulting in constant growth of its library. However, concerns have been raised (see legal issues) over the legality of this content with regards to copyright infringement.
Click to expand...
Lala purchased by Apple and shut down.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']

Why does it have to be all about the music industry bending over backwards? I mean, I understand if they want to stay in business, they need to adapt - but this "adapt or we'll take what we want by force" idea that many people have just seems wrong.



.[/QUOTE]

I cant see how any rational person could categorize the music industries 'actions' as concession or bending over backwards. The concept that any industry needs to be dragged into new forms of commerce is ridiculous in its own right.
Not only will they not proceed forward willingly, but they'd prefer to backpedal into another century altogether. Rifting off my own previous example, I'll give you another one:

EMI would like to shut out small independent dealers altogether. If you're Best Buy or Target you're fine, but if you're "Crazy Ray's Record World" then, you're S.O.L. You're not allowed to sell any products from EMI recording artists.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You can be anti-corporate without having to commit copyright fraud to convey your point.[/QUOTE]
It's not fraud. It's not theft. The pig doesn't need lipstick to make her case.
[quote name='Knoell']Granted 80K per song is too much, but $750 per song doesn't seem that out of whack.[/QUOTE]
Because awarding damages factored 750 times is flat absurd. Five times damages is reasonable but their "product" has so little base value that everyone demands that people pay more. Why, I have no idea. Proportionality goes right out the window when people talk about this.
[quote name='dmaul1114']1. A person should have exclusive right to sell their creation during their lifetimes. Again, ask yourself how you'd feel if you created something, it was selling like hot cakes, yet after 25 years (or whatever) the copyright ran out and any company could print your book, record etc. and sell it and make money without you getting your cut.

2. It should go a bit past death to encourage late in life work, releasing work posthumously etc.[/quote]
I disagree. Until the turn of the century, 20 years was probably reasonable. Now concepts are outdated in months, not decades. To push forward, you have to make the window reasonable enough for people to profit while at the same time getting ideas out to be built upon. Music, movies, games (ie old media) should be 20 years tops. Software and business processes shouldn't be copyrightable at all because the restraint on the economy is so massive.
[quote name='mykevermin']But here's the fundamental political problem that leads to the Democrats earning their moniker of "wimps" (deservedly so). Who is the first to break this stalemate? The Dems concede all the time, and the Republicans do not break party line as we've seen for the past decade. The Dems then concede some more. So I'm not particularly willing to concede any points for debate. Why? Well, I've seen what making the first steps towards negotiation has done for the Democrats, and I frankly see nothing but dishonesty in the arguments made by those who are against crime-control in the form of policing piracy. I want to see honest arguments from that side first and foremost. Disarm yourselves of any false pretense of nobility. You're not the anarchist black bloc, you're just someone who wants to have stuff for free. Once you abandon the idea that your actions are noble, then we can start to begin moving this discussion in a direction we can mutually agree on.[/QUOTE]
Lemme bat that back at ya. On the nobility of stealing thing, I agree. It is absurd to have consumed media that has been obtained via copyright infringement and then pretend there's a moral leg to stand on.

Raise your hand if you've never knowingly consumed infringing media. Who's ready to own their "stealing" ways and is rushing to turn themselves, their family members, their coworkers, and their neighbors in? Anyone? The dishonestly of the argument is right there in the seat that's reading this and not writing an email to the **AA. Theft right? Criminal, no? And yet...
[quote name='Knoell']These days I dont understand why people pirate music, you can demo a whole lotta songs from itunes and buy them for a buck if you like them.[/QUOTE]
Which leads me to the fabled "compromise" by the RIAA. Yep, you get DRM less tunes! On a platform that actively prohibits interoperability. So I can now pay the Apple hardware tax if I want DRM less tunes. Lucky consumer huh! See also Palm Pre vs. iTunes.
[quote name='mykevermin']It's easy, it's efficient, and the probability of being caught and prosecuted for it is incredibly low.

That's more or less why. I get why people do pirate.[/QUOTE]
I'm looking for a solution and I don't see any offered by content holders outside of Steam, which I friggin adore. Give the people the interoperability and there's NO reason left to violate copyright. Until then, my ripped Bowie DVD xvid on my phone, even though I own the album and the DVD, is infringement. I am infringing.
[quote name='UncleBob']Don't forget the services where you get the all-you-can-listen-to on demand + downloads for one price. Isn't the Zune Marketplace set up for $15/month with unlimited DRM'd downloads (that expire if your subscription expires) and ten DRM-free downloads? That's a pretty good deal if you're a music fan.[/QUOTE]
Don't pick the wrong one!
http://boingboing.net/2008/09/26/walmart-shutting-dow.html

And Grooveshark is illegal as hell.
 
[quote name='Clak']Here's an idea, you stop being an ass.[/QUOTE]

Says the guy who takes what he wants, when he wants it, how he wants it, without regard to the law or the will of the people he's taking it from?

[quote name='speedracer']Raise your hand if you've never knowingly consumed infringing media. Who's ready to own their "stealing" ways and is rushing to turn themselves, their family members, their coworkers, and their neighbors in? Anyone? The dishonestly of the argument is right there in the seat that's reading this and not writing an email to the **AA. Theft right? Criminal, no? And yet...[/QUOTE]

I once downloaded an illegal copy of Link's Awakening for the original GB. I already owned it (twice) and was mistaken on the idea that if you owned it, you could download it (Hey, I was like 13 and the whole internet was still a little new then). I contacted Nintendo because I wanted legal permission to use graphics and such for a fansite/walk through I was putting together because I liked the game so much. I was informed that I wasn't allowed to download the game - I apologized and the person I spoke with said it was okay, to just delete it and asked where I downloaded it. Also, several times, I've sent e-mails to their legal team with locations of ROM sites and such.

Do I run to the RIAA every time a co-worker mentions illegally downloading a song? No. But I don't run to the cops every time someone mentions smoking pot or something either.
 
[quote name='speedracer']
I disagree. Until the turn of the century, 20 years was probably reasonable. Now concepts are outdated in months, not decades. To push forward, you have to make the window reasonable enough for people to profit while at the same time getting ideas out to be built upon. Music, movies, games (ie old media) should be 20 years tops. Software and business processes shouldn't be copyrightable at all because the restraint on the economy is so massive.
[/QUOTE]

Just have to agree to disagree when it comes to movies, books, movies etc.

A person creates something like that, they should be the only person able to profit off it for at least their lifetimes.

If someone writes a book that continues selling for decades, they shouldn't have to watch it go public domain and have any publisher who is interest printing copies and selling them for profit they see none of themselves etc.

Now software and other things IMO should fall under patent law which is separate from copyright and doesn't need to last the lifetime of the creator.

Difference is that there's a clear benefit to advancing progress by having technology, medicine etc. enter the public domain quicker. There's not really for movies, music, video games, books etc. as people can already sight those, pay royalties to use them in their commercial products, get them for free from the library or other sources etc.

So there's no rush and no need to cheat the creator out of profits during their lifetime IMO. It would suck balls to write a book etc. and see other people making money off of it.
 
For things to ever be fair to consumers, the DMCA needs to go. I remember doing a presentation/speech about it for a COMM class once. Nobody understood what it was or how it effected them, even after I told them exactly how it did. People can't grasp the concept that they aren't free to do what they want with something they've bought. They don't realize that by copying that DVD to their computer, they've just broken the law. People want to be able to use the things they buy, wherever and however they want, and why shouldn't they be able to? Why shouldn't we be able to rip a DVD and store a copy on our desktops, laptops, phones, etc.? We have to jump through hoops and break the law just to use what we've bought.

The only answer I see is movie studios selling movies in many different formats so you can basically have it on anything. They don't seem to be in a hurry to do that however, plus who wants to basically purchase the same thing twice? Ideally they would just let us rip it, convert it, whatever to get it on our devices, but they aren't going to do that.

edit- Annnd Bobby goes on the ignore list.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I got a big kick out of this.

harrypotternetprofits.jpg

EXCLUSIVE: Signing a deal that makes anyone a net profit participant in a Hollywood movie deal has always been a sucker’s bet. In an era where studios have all but eliminated first dollar gross and invited talent to share the risk and potential rewards, guess what? Net profit deals are still a sucker's bet. I was slipped a net profit statement (below) for Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix, the 2007 Warner Bros sequel. Though the film grossed $938.2 million worldwide, the accounting statement below conveys that the film is still over $167 million in the red.

I ran the data above by several attorneys and agents, who are so accustomed to seeing studio accounting wave magic pencils over hit movies that they weren't surprised even a Harry Potter film that grossed nearly $1 billion would fall under the spell. Dealmakers say studio distribution fees are a killer, as are incestuous ad spends on studios' sister company networks. They also cited the $57 million in interest charges, an enormous pushback on profitablity. Since Warner Bros didn't invite in a co-financing partner on the Potter films, has the studio borrowed money from parent company coffers? Are they paying that interest to a bank, or to themselves? Bottom line: nearly $60 million in interest for the estimated $400 million required to make and market Harry Potter, charges carried for about two years, is a high tariff.

As one dealmaker tells me: "If this is the fair definition of net profits, why do we continue to pretend and go through this charade? Judging by this, no movie is ever, ever going to go to pay off on net participants. It's an illusion to make writers, and lower-level actors and filmmakers feel they have a stake in the game."

And yet Warner Bros isn’t doing anything differently here than is done by every other studio. Clearly, nothing has changed since Art Buchwald successfully sued Paramount over the 1988 hit Coming to America when the subject of net participation was scrutinized, and a judge called studio accounting methods “unconscionable”.
Click to expand...

http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/stu...ause-of-warner-bros-phony-baloney-accounting/
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Just have to agree to disagree when it comes to movies, books, movies etc.

A person creates something like that, they should be the only person able to profit off it for at least their lifetimes.

If someone writes a book that continues selling for decades, they shouldn't have to watch it go public domain and have any publisher who is interest printing copies and selling them for profit they see none of themselves etc.

Now software and other things IMO should fall under patent law which is separate from copyright and doesn't need to last the lifetime of the creator.

Difference is that there's a clear benefit to advancing progress by having technology, medicine etc. enter the public domain quicker. There's not really for movies, music, video games, books etc. as people can already sight those, pay royalties to use them in their commercial products, get them for free from the library or other sources etc.

So there's no rush and no need to cheat the creator out of profits during their lifetime IMO. It would suck balls to write a book etc. and see other people making money off of it.[/QUOTE]
What about the families of performers who continue milking their dead relative's work and image for years after they're dead? Take Elvis Presley, the guy is worth more dead than he ever was alive. His family continues to milk his work and image for all it's worth, everything from new albums to merchandising everything you can think of. Did they earn any of that? Should they get to live off his work just because they are his family?
 
[quote name='Clak']What about the families of performers who continue milking their dead relative's work and image for years after they're dead? Take Elvis Presley, the guy is worth more dead than he ever was alive. His family continues to milk his work and image for all it's worth, everything from new albums to merchandising everything you can think of. Did they earn any of that? Should they get to live off his work just because they are his family?[/QUOTE]

That shouldn't happen. Copyright should last until death, or at most 10 years or so past (to encourage late in life work, posthumous publication etc.).

The current death +70 is far too long for just the reason you list.
 
[quote name='Clak']For things to ever be fair to consumers, the DMCA needs to go. I remember doing a presentation/speech about it for a COMM class once. Nobody understood what it was or how it effected them, even after I told them exactly how it did. People can't grasp the concept that they aren't free to do what they want with something they've bought. They don't realize that by copying that DVD to their computer, they've just broken the law. People want to be able to use the things they buy, wherever and however they want, and why shouldn't they be able to? Why shouldn't we be able to rip a DVD and store a copy on our desktops, laptops, phones, etc.? We have to jump through hoops and break the law just to use what we've bought.

The only answer I see is movie studios selling movies in many different formats so you can basically have it on anything. They don't seem to be in a hurry to do that however, plus who wants to basically purchase the same thing twice? Ideally they would just let us rip it, convert it, whatever to get it on our devices, but they aren't going to do that.

edit- Annnd Bobby goes on the ignore list.[/QUOTE]


Also agree with that as I've said throughout the thread.

Fair use laws need a huge updating and expansion for sure. One should be able to do what they want with an album, movie or book they own as long as they aren't distributing copies to others.

That's the main change that needs to happen in terms of the industries giving us consumers what we deserve.

But still, all that crap doesn't justify piracy. If I don't like the DRM on something, I don't buy it. Or I'll just strip it as I have no qualms doing that since I'm not passing it on to others. But I'll never go pirate something to "protest" the crappy DRM etc.
 
Actually by breaking copy protection/DRM you've broken the law anyway. That's why the DMCA needs to go, it basically kills fair use. You can only make backups of things that aren't protected, and that's very little these days.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Do I run to the RIAA every time a co-worker mentions illegally downloading a song? No. But I don't run to the cops every time someone mentions smoking pot or something either.[/QUOTE]
Totally. Here's my point: it obviously doesn't rise to anyone's (even offended copyright supporters) level of "Imma turn you in because that's fucked". Doesn't make it right, but it ain't fraud. It's ain't theft. It's a violation of copyright. And it should be treated that way.

To tie my view together:
I once downloaded an illegal copy of Link's Awakening for the original GB. I already owned it (twice) and was mistaken on the idea that if you owned it, you could download it (Hey, I was like 13 and the whole internet was still a little new then).
Click to expand...
The level of liability you incurred is staggering, potentially tens of thousands of dollars (or more in the wrong courthouse). I know others are arguing from the other way, that companies are coming around and peeps shouldn't be downloading/stealing/defrauding/murdering anyway. I think they're right for the wrong reasons. When you have a comprehensive, easy to understand, easy to follow, and easy to use system, enforcement makes sense. When you have the convoluted disaster that is copyright, enforcement makes no sense at all. When probably a full 25% of the population is violating copyright without knowing it (rip a cd lately.. or ever?), something is wrong. Randomly choosing people and financially executing them with lawyers isn't doing anyone any good.

Sure as hell isn't stopping piracy.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That shouldn't happen. Copyright should last until death, or at most 10 years or so past (to encourage late in life work, posthumous publication etc.).

The current death +70 is far too long for just the reason you list.[/QUOTE]

what about corps? If it owns the copyright it could continue forever.

also why do some in here think that heirs should not be allowed to profit from dead relatives work?
 
[quote name='Clak']Actually by breaking copy protection/DRM you've broken the law anyway. That's why the DMCA needs to go, it basically kills fair use. You can only make backups of things that aren't protected, and that's very little these days.[/QUOTE]

Agree 100%. Like I say, I'm all for fair use. Just 100% against piracy in any instance. But we should be able to do whatever we want (beyond making copies to give/sell to others) of content we buy.
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']what about corps? If it owns the copyright it could continue forever.[/quote]

Would have to have a different type of copyright for corporations that was a set number of years rather than death, or death plus 10 years etc.
 
[quote name='Clak']edit- Annnd Bobby goes on the ignore list.[/QUOTE]

Truth hurts, eh?

[quote name='speedracer']Sure as hell isn't stopping piracy.[/QUOTE]

But we've already established - absolutely nothing will stop piracy. Even giving away free software with no DRM, people still pirate it anyway.

[quote name='xxDOYLExx']also why do some in here think that heirs should not be allowed to profit from dead relatives work?[/QUOTE]

If I spend my money to buy land and supplies and spend my time to build a house, I can pass that home on to my children, etc., etc.
If I spend my money to buy education and supplies, then spend my time to record an album, I have nothing to leave my children.

What?
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']what about corps? If it owns the copyright it could continue forever.

also why do some in here think that heirs should not be allowed to profit from dead relatives work?[/QUOTE]
Why should they? Unless they somehow contributed to it, they didn't work to create it. No I don't think that Presley's family should be allowed to continue milking his' work. Let them create something of their own to make money off of.
 
Alot of you guys take copyright too seriously.

It's just an artificial concept created with the goal of encouraging innovation and creativity. It's only as useful in-so-far as it encourages innovation and creativity. Let me say that again - the goal of copyright is to encourage innovation and creativity.

Copyright is not an insurance policy for a musician's relatives, it is not an asset like a house that can be physically bequeathed after death, and as a corporate asset it's only useful in-so-far as it encourages innovation and creativity (thus the terms of this monopoly must be strictly defined, rigorously enforced and as brief as possible)

We can all think of a million what-ifs and sob-stories that could be used disingenuously (or ignorantly) as justifications of current copyright law. But that's like a creationist cherry-picking evidence in an attempt to refute evolution. Any rational person can see that much of the current copyright system is corrupt, backwards, and anti-innovation.
 
[quote name='Clak']Why should they? Unless they somehow contributed to it, they didn't work to create it. No I don't think that Presley's family should be allowed to continue milking his' work. Let them create something of their own to make money off of.[/QUOTE]

wow...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']But we've already established - absolutely nothing will stop piracy. Even giving away free software with no DRM, people still pirate it anyway.[/quote]
There was a bigger point there.
If I spend my money to buy land and supplies and spend my time to build a house, I can pass that home on to my children, etc., etc.
If I spend my money to buy education and supplies, then spend my time to record an album, I have nothing to leave my children.

What?
Click to expand...
You mean other than the album? lolwut?
 
[quote name='camoor']Alot of you guys take copyright too seriously.

It's just an artificial concept created with the goal of encouraging innovation and creativity. It's only as useful in-so-far as it encourages innovation and creativity. Let me say that again - the goal of copyright is to encourage innovation and creativity.
[/QUOTE]

True. I just think it needs to evolve from that purpose to protecting the right to sell ones own creations.

If I wrote a book or made an album and had to watch other companies printing and selling it with me getting no royalties because the copyright expired in my lifetime I'd probably be thrown into a homicidal rage! :D
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']True. I just think it needs to evolve from that purpose to protecting the right to sell ones own creations.

If I wrote a book or made an album and had to watch other companies printing and selling it with me getting no royalties because the copyright expired in my lifetime I'd probably be thrown into a homicidal rage! :D[/QUOTE]
Copyright not only needs to get with the times in regards to internet, but also in regards to longer average lifetimes.

Yay for obsolete.
 
^ Y'ever look at academic book sales? You have a cluster of books that sell tens of thousands, a smattering that sell a couple thousand, and then you have the rest of the market.

You'd be getting bent over enough money to take you and yours on a nice weeklong vacation, perhaps, but not enough to build that extension to your house you've been dreaming of.

Now, if you're talking textbooks, that's a whole 'nother issue altogether. ;)
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']True. I just think it needs to evolve from that purpose to protecting the right to sell ones own creations.

If I wrote a book or made an album and had to watch other companies printing and selling it with me getting no royalties because the copyright expired in my lifetime I'd probably be thrown into a homicidal rage! :D[/QUOTE]

Hopefully the internet will keep helping with that. I'd wouldn't mind seeing the labels dissappear, to be replaced by services that an artist can hire to help with distribution and financials. In the modern world labels are an almost completely useless waste.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']^ Y'ever look at academic book sales? You have a cluster of books that sell tens of thousands, a smattering that sell a couple thousand, and then you have the rest of the market.

You'd be getting bent over enough money to take you and yours on a nice weeklong vacation, perhaps, but not enough to build that extension to your house you've been dreaming of.

Now, if you're talking textbooks, that's a whole 'nother issue altogether. ;)[/QUOTE]

Oh I know as some of my colleages/mentors have published a few academic books. I was just speaking hypothetically and more saying that's how I empathize with commercial authors, musicians etc. when it comes to my die hard support for copyright lasting at least until the creator's death. I just can't stomach the thought of creators watching others sell their books, songs etc. without them getting their share as the copyright expired during their lifetime.

I doubt I'd ever write an academic book as they just count for next to nothing towards tenure at research universities in our field as compared to peer reviewed journal articles. Maybe way down the road when I'm a full professor and don't have to worry about that crap anymore! And only then if there's something I think important enough to write a book about.

I'll certainly never write a text book. I don't particularly enjoy teaching to begin with. Just something I suffer through for the 100% freedom in my research agenda, schedule, summers of mostly working from home on research etc. etc.

[quote name='camoor']Hopefully the internet will keep helping with that. I'd wouldn't mind seeing the labels dissappear, to be replaced by services that an artist can hire to help with distribution and financials. In the modern world labels are an almost completely useless waste.[/QUOTE]

That can definitely happen. There are already e-book stores like Smashwords and others that let author's self publish. The move to the digital era can help squeeze out the middle man. Movies will always probably need studios since the budgets are so huge for many movies if they're heavy on effects and star power etc. But with the move to ebooks, publishers are less needed, any musician can record stuff, book studio time etc.

Hopefully as that happens we'll see the anti-copyright people soften their stances as they see it protecting the artists directly rather than corporations they use as scapegoats for wanting to get crap free etc.
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']wow...[/QUOTE]
Incredible isn't it, that I think the world doesn't need another singing Elvis statue. For all we know, some of these people who are merchandised to hell wouldn't even want their images used like that.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Oh I know as some of my colleages/mentors have published a few academic books. I was just speaking hypothetically and more saying that's how I empathize with commercial authors, musicians etc. when it comes to my die hard support for copyright lasting at least until the creator's death. I just can't stomach the thought of creators watching others sell their books, songs etc. without them getting their share as the copyright expired during their lifetime.[/QUOTE]

Apparently that happened to Tolkien in a pretty hardcore fashion with LOTR. The cheap copies got into the hands of 70s counterculture, which resulted in alot of 'Frodo lives' hippies writing to him with alternate theories about LOTR that drove him nuts.

I can't find that article, but my favorite story was about this one hippie who got high on acid and read LOTR in one sitting. After completing the trilogy he prompty got in his car, climbed the nearest mountain, and burned his wedding ring. He then wrote Tolkein bragging that he knew the secret meaning of the books. Apparently Tolkein took all this correspondence quite seriously and his secretary had to start screening his mail.
 
[quote name='camoor']Apparently that happened to Tolkien in a pretty hardcore fashion with LOTR. The cheap copies got into the hands of 70s counterculture, which resulted in alot of 'Frodo lives' hippies writing to him with alternate theories about LOTR that drove him nuts.

I can't find that article, but my favorite story was about this one hippie who got high on acid and read LOTR in one sitting. After completing the trilogy he prompty got in his car, climbed the nearest mountain, and burned his wedding ring. He then wrote Tolkein bragging that he knew the secret meaning of the books. Apparently Tolkein took all this correspondence quite seriously and his secretary had to start screening his mail.[/QUOTE]

LOTR got a lot of help from zeppelin as well.
 
[quote name='camoor']Apparently that happened to Tolkien in a pretty hardcore fashion with LOTR. The cheap copies got into the hands of 70s counterculture, which resulted in alot of 'Frodo lives' hippies writing to him with alternate theories about LOTR that drove him nuts.

I can't find that article, but my favorite story was about this one hippie who got high on acid and read LOTR in one sitting. After completing the trilogy he prompty got in his car, climbed the nearest mountain, and burned his wedding ring. He then wrote Tolkein bragging that he knew the secret meaning of the books. Apparently Tolkein took all this correspondence quite seriously and his secretary had to start screening his mail.[/QUOTE]

IIRC Tolkien was a conservative monarchist and could not be further away from basically anarcho-hippie commune dwellers who glommed onto it.

Although it isn't exactly hard to see how they got an anti-war back to nature message.
 
[quote name='camoor']Alot of you guys take copyright too seriously.

It's just an artificial concept [...][/QUOTE]

I'm curious - is there any type of ownership that isn't an artificial concept?
 
[quote name='camoor']Apparently that happened to Tolkien in a pretty hardcore fashion with LOTR. The cheap copies got into the hands of 70s counterculture, which resulted in alot of 'Frodo lives' hippies writing to him with alternate theories about LOTR that drove him nuts. [/QUOTE]
What are the chances, right? Speaking of the Tolkien Trust, they sued New Line when New Line gave them their 7.5% cut of the net revenue from the movie trilogy: $62,000. Also Peter Jackson sued when he was defrauded out of millions.

Oh look, Disney does it too.

Oh look, Warner Bros does it too.

Those last two links are just from this week only. And I already posted on how labels intentionally steal from artists and would be liable for $6 billion using their own math.

fuck the pity party.
 
The corporations definitely suck.

But that doesn't mean we should throw copyright out the window and fuck over the artists even more. Especially as we move into digital distribution and artists being able to self publish books and albums etc.

Nor does anything ever justify piracy. If one hates a corporation, boycotting their products entirely is the way to go. Not acquiring them and enjoying them without paying for them.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm curious - is there any type of ownership that isn't an artificial concept?[/QUOTE]

Yeah. For an example walk up to the nearest person and try to take their wallet.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The corporations definitely suck.

But that doesn't mean we should throw copyright out the window and fuck over the artists even more. Especially as we move into digital distribution and artists being able to self publish books and albums etc.

Nor does anything ever justify piracy. If one hates a corporation, boycotting their products entirely is the way to go. Not acquiring them and enjoying them without paying for them.[/QUOTE]
I agree that nothing justifies piracy and I'm not here to do that. I'm just saying that enforcing one of the most obtusely absurd gray areas of legal compliance among Americans as if it's as elementary is... not reasonable. First we clarify and clean up what is and isn't patentable, copyrightable, and fair. Then we figure out where that puts us. Then we enforce.

Otherwise we end up with shit like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top