SOPA anyone?

AshesofWake

AshesofWake

CAGiversary!
Feedback
18 (100%)
Unless I missed the topic on this elsewhere on the site, what is everyone's opinion on it?

if you need a very brief weak summary of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOPA


But honestly, as an individual that purchases entertainment content and downloads it, I can't decide whether I am for it or not. On the outer crust it seems to be a total corporate driven workhorse of a bill. It's completely monetary in its intentions, even when considering the non-piracy aspect of it such as purchasing medication from out of the country. But as a copyright set of mind and to prevent "intellectual property" however that may be defined, it's pretty vague. It makes sense to have something to prevent what the government considers piracy in this day and age, but it's one of those things that seems to good to be true?

It truly makes me think about how insanely the world has changed in the last 50 years. This whole new aspect of life that no one really even considered for a single bit has become our day to day way of communication and lifestyle. I personally see it as one of the most difficult things to control or to make manageable in such a day and age. It's unfathomable where we have come as a form of technology and what a role law takes us to now, where given the government the right to protect it's population from whatever it may be, be it piracy or war. Obviously not the same thing, but piracy is a threat to the lively hoods of individuals and I'm not talking about the billion dollar singers either.

I honestly just don't know, but from what I've been reading this bill will be voted on by the end of January.
 
I am really, really against illegally downloading copyrighted material. I actually buy CDs. :D

With that said, SOPA is bad legislation. There's virtually no due process in the bill for someone accused of uploading copyrighted material.
 
“The criticism of this bill is completely hypothetical; none of it is based in reality. Not one of the critics was able to point to any language in the bill that would in any way harm the Internet. Their accusations are simply not supported by any facts,” said Smith in a statement, quoted by Roll Call.
Click to expand...

Lamar, you ignorant slut.

dan_aykroyd.gif


All these SOPA/DMCA schemes do is piss people like me off, people that would gladly pay for media. I haven't bought music or movies in years unless it was released online and avoided labels entirely.
[quote name='UncleBob']There's virtually no due process in the bill for someone accused of uploading copyrighted material.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To the ranks of same-sex marriage, tax cuts and illegal immigration, add this to the list of polarizing political issues of Election 2012: the Stop Online Piracy Act.
The hot-button anti-piracy legislation that sparked a revolt online is starting to become a political liability for some of SOPA’s major backers. Fueled by Web activists and online fundraising tools, challengers are using the bill to tag its congressional supporters as backers of Big Government — and raise campaign cash while they’re at it.
Click to expand...

​
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71284.html

Refreshing - this is how democracy should work.
 
Funny how someone could be against "big government" and still back something like this. Nothing hypocritical there.
 
SOPA = protection for the politician's friends who are too lazy to innovate and to deal with a changing world. Thus they bribe politicians, err, I mean lobby politicians, to create favorable laws... In the process, it erodes our freedom and privacy.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I am really, really against illegally downloading copyrighted material. I actually buy CDs. :D

With that said, SOPA is bad legislation. There's virtually no due process in the bill for someone accused of uploading copyrighted material.[/QUOTE]

Since when was due process a big deal in post-9/11 America?
 
League of Legends (a free to play online game that's rather huge right now) stated it's opposition to SOPA the other day, and on the first page of the comments on the message boards, it seems a congressman payed a visit -- seems he's a fan of the game too. The developers already seemed to know of it, and gave him a special title on the boards.

Just thought it was pretty cool, and I play the game regularly so it's nice to know there's a congressman playing who understands the value of a free internet.


Hi, this is Congressman Jared Polis of Colorado. As a member of the League of Legends community (partial to Anivia and Maokai), and as someone who made his living as an Internet entrepreneur before being elected to Congress, I’m greatly concerned about the future of the Internet and gaming if Congress doesn't wake up. You may have heard that Congress is currently considering a bill called the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA. While SOPA has a ton of problems, there are some significant issues that I thought fellow gamers might want to know about.

I’m particularly concerned that SOPA might stifle the kind of innovation that brings us games we love, such as LoL. The bill makes it far too easy for angry competitors to sue good law abiding companies out of existence. It threatens any company or website that depends on user-generated content, even companies like Riot. Instead of coming up with great ways to keep making games like LoL even better, companies will have to spend their money hiring lawyers. That's why companies like Riot, who want to protect the games they create, are opposed to SOPA.

I’ve been working on alternative legislation that would protect the games companies create while also fostering innovation. But we also need you to call your members of Congress and let them know of your opposition to SOPA. This bill has a very real chance of passing, and it is up to all of who want to protect the Internet to take action. More information is available at http://keepthewebopen.com/. Please make your voices heard in this debate! I will be happy to respond to your posts below, and will check back every few hours today and respond to as many as I can.
Click to expand...

thread is here.
 
Apparently, the White House has reservations about SOPA. Despite Darrell Issa (R-CA) saying the legislation is stalled, the cynic in me thinks the very fact that the President is "against" it, means that the House Republicans will try and push it harder.

But I'd love to be proven wrong.
 
[quote name='BigT']SOPA = protection for the politician's friends who are too lazy to innovate and to deal with a changing world. Thus they bribe politicians, err, I mean lobby politicians, to create favorable laws... In the process, it erodes our freedom and privacy.[/QUOTE]

This is a good point, isn't SOPA just dinosaur industries trying to use the government to protect themselves against the march of progress?

According to Robert Heinlein's "Life-Line" tale, this sort of activity can be argued as unconstitutional. ;)
 
Cracked to the rescue

Now, for anyone who doesn't understand the ins and outs of SOPA's enforcement policies, let me describe exactly how this will play out in each delicious detail. First, Universal, Disney, Viacom or any of the other entertainment giants would need to be convinced that he is deliberately infringing on their copyrights. This shouldn't be too difficult because these companies have a long history of misunderstanding exactly what constitutes a threat to their business on the Internet, and because I'm also very persuasive. From there, they can issue court orders to any payment processers or advertisers doing business with his blog. Considering my 15 hate-visits a day probably make up the majority of his traffic, I doubt his website is connected to Paypal or AdSense, so this step technically won't do much except humiliate him, hopefully.

Court orders are also simultaneously sent to search engines, barring them from displaying his blog in their rankings. This will effectively cut off anyone from finding his site or stumbling on it by accident. All his Linkin Park covers will be like angsty, lonely ships adrift out in the broad expanse of the World Wide Web.
Click to expand...


http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-only-argument-internet-in-favor-sopa/
 
[quote name='Clak']Funny how someone could be against "big government" and still back something like this. Nothing hypocritical there.[/QUOTE]

While hardly a big govt cook, law =/= government

Something needs to be done about piracy, there's no question in that. I mean hell, it's practically ruined the music industry simply because people think that mp3's lack a physical medium and it isn't stealing.

BUT.

It needs to be better than SOPA because as it stands SOPA is so all over the place that it doesn't even really deal with any of the REAL problems at hand.
 
[quote name='nasum']While hardly a big govt cook, law =/= government

Something needs to be done about piracy, there's no question in that. I mean hell, it's practically ruined the music industry simply because people think that mp3's lack a physical medium and it isn't stealing.

BUT.

It needs to be better than SOPA because as it stands SOPA is so all over the place that it doesn't even really deal with any of the REAL problems at hand.[/QUOTE]
How can you even say that? Who do you think passes the laws? That has to be one of the more asinine things... ah forget it.

Anyway, the music industry only has itself to blame. Piracy was the big truck they were too slow to sidestep, now they're limping along trying to survive.
 
I think the big govt lunatics are more into agencies and such. I suppose I could have been more clear, but an anti-piracy law is hardly govt intrusion into your life.

Yes, and victims of Somali pirates only have themselves to blame for operating a boat so close to Somalia!

Sidestep by doing what exactly? DRM? Everyone bitches and finds a way around it...
 
[quote name='Clak']

Anyway, the music industry only has itself to blame. Piracy was the big truck they were too slow to sidestep, now they're limping along trying to survive.[/QUOTE]

I didn't agree with SOPA in its initial form but if due process is not violated then I'm not opposed to it. Piracy has to be curtailed in some manner. The bulk of our economy is dependent on intellectual property and our ability to protect it.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']I didn't agree with SOPA in its initial form but if due process is not violated then I'm not opposed to it. Piracy has to be curtailed in some manner. The bulk of our economy is dependent on intellectual property and our ability to protect it.[/QUOTE]


I agree with that definitely. There really needs to be done about the way technology has changed the world as far as rights to intellectual property go. It's how individuals make a living, from thousands to millions. SOPA doesn't seem to be that answer, it really needs to evolve and becoming something specific rather than so vague and potentially abused.
 
[quote name='nasum']I think the big govt lunatics are more into agencies and such. I suppose I could have been more clear, but an anti-piracy law is hardly govt intrusion into your life.

Yes, and victims of Somali pirates only have themselves to blame for operating a boat so close to Somalia!

Sidestep by doing what exactly? DRM? Everyone bitches and finds a way around it...[/QUOTE]
Somali pirates? Nice straw man, bro.

Sidestep it by evolving with the times. Both the recording industry and film industry have been dragged, kicking and screaming into the 21st century. They're like old people who don't want to change. But just as in nature, those who fail to evolve, die off. Only these industries are able to avoid having to evolve by getting laws written to their advantage, thus maintaining the status quo and preventing the need to change.

And as far as anti-piracy being an intrusion into your life, tell that to a website operator who has their site taken down because of some moronic legislation like this.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']I didn't agree with SOPA in its initial form but if due process is not violated then I'm not opposed to it. Piracy has to be curtailed in some manner. The bulk of our economy is dependent on intellectual property and our ability to protect it.[/QUOTE]
Provide a better service than the pirates, piracy goes away. Give me the ability to play a movie on any device I own, I'll stop ripping and/or downloading movies.
 
strawman shmawman, you're engaging in the same victim blaming that you abhor in another thread but it's ok to steal from the entertainment industry because you feel it is justified for whatever reason.

pirate bay should have been taken down, that's not intrusion anymore than stopping someone from walking out of Target with a TV for which they have not paid. Sure, there are borderline cases where legislation overstepped but at the same time you can't host a site that distributes copyright protected material without the permission of the copyright holder. Is it that hard to understand or are you just dense?
 
[quote name='AshesofWake']I agree with that definitely. There really needs to be done about the way technology has changed the world as far as rights to intellectual property go. It's how individuals make a living, from thousands to millions. SOPA doesn't seem to be that answer, it really needs to evolve and becoming something specific rather than so vague and potentially abused.[/QUOTE]

I wholeheartedly agree. As initially proposed SOPA was unconstitutional because it clearly violated due process. IMO the Corporations supporting SOPA are looking to create new licensing market/revenue stream and most importantly are trying to grab a piece of that advertising pie.
 
[quote name='Clak']Provide a better service than the pirates, piracy goes away. Give me the ability to play a movie on any device I own, I'll stop ripping and/or downloading movies.[/QUOTE]

I agree with the gist of your argument that these companies should win consumers over by providing them with a better service but they can also rely on laws to accomplish the same goal. The reality of the situation is that they don't have to give you shit. It's their content and they have a right to do with it as they please. If you don't like their terms create your own content or don't buy it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']Provide a better service than the pirates, piracy goes away. Give me the ability to play a movie on any device I own, I'll stop ripping and/or downloading movies.[/QUOTE]

It's not that simple.

Music has been DRM free for years and thus can easily be put on any device you own. It's also gotten dirt cheap with even major albums tending to be $5 or less regularly on Amazon and other places.

Yet people still pirate in huge numbers.

I agree that every media needs to do like music and get rid of DRM etc. as all that stuff just hassles legitimate consumers and does nothing to stop pirates. But it's naive to think that will solve the problem.

The industries can't compete with the main thing that piracy offers--content for free.

I have no idea what the solution is. It's near impossible to police and punish pirates on any large scale. And it's going to be hard to change this culture where tons of people think it's perfectly ok and justifiable to pirate copyrighted material, even though most would never even consider stealing a physical copy of the same material.
 
[quote name='nasum']strawman shmawman, you're engaging in the same victim blaming that you abhor in another thread but it's ok to steal from the entertainment industry because you feel it is justified for whatever reason.

pirate bay should have been taken down, that's not intrusion anymore than stopping someone from walking out of Target with a TV for which they have not paid. Sure, there are borderline cases where legislation overstepped but at the same time you can't host a site that distributes copyright protected material without the permission of the copyright holder. Is it that hard to understand or are you just dense?[/QUOTE]
I'm not defending anyone or anything, but you comparing IP piracy to you know, actual fucking piracy, is ridiculous to the extreme.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']I agree with the gist of your argument that these companies should win consumers over by providing them with a better service but they can also rely on laws to accomplish the same goal. .[/QUOTE]
I hate to be the flag bearer of capitalism here, but that isn't capitalistic, at least that's not how ti's supposed to work anyway. You want to win customers, do so by providing the best service, not by getting laws enacted, laws which favor you. Like I said, I'd gladly quit ripping movies I buy, or downloading a copy if I could simply have a digital copy to watch where I wanted, how I wanted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's not that simple.

Music has been DRM free for years and thus can easily be put on any device you own. It's also gotten dirt cheap with even major albums tending to be $5 or less regularly on Amazon and other places.

Yet people still pirate in huge numbers.

I agree that every media needs to do like music and get rid of DRM etc. as all that stuff just hassles legitimate consumers and does nothing to stop pirates. But it's naive to think that will solve the problem.

The industries can't compete with the main thing that piracy offers--content for free.

I have no idea what the solution is. It's near impossible to police and punish pirates on any large scale. And it's going to be hard to change this culture where tons of people think it's perfectly ok and justifiable to pirate copyrighted material, even though most would never even consider stealing a physical copy of the same material.[/QUOTE]
Bear with me for a moment, but have you ever thought about how much music is downloaded simply because it is free? Meaning that otherwise, somebody wouldn't download it anyway? See that's where the money lost argument falls apart. No one knows how much is lost to piracy, because you can't say for certain that every downloaded *thing* would have otherwise been bought.

Again, I'm not defending anyone here. I agree that music is cheap enough and open enough now that nobody should be pirating. The film industry still has a ways to go though.
 
[quote name='Clak']I hate to be the flag bearer of capitalism here, but that isn't capitalistic, at least that's not how ti's supposed to work anyway. You want to win customers, do so by providing the best service, not by getting laws enacted laws which favor you. Like I said, I'd gladly quit ripping movies I buy, or downloading a copy if I could simply have a digital copy to watch where I wanted, how I wanted.[/QUOTE]

Wait a second. Let's back up a bit. Patent and Copyright law is part of the US Constitution. Over the years it has been modified both in favor of the people and corporations. So given these facts ripping movies or music violates copyright law. Your argument is flawed because these companies are not creating new laws to make it illegal for you to rip movies because as stated above it already is. They're trying to get laws enacted which merely enforce the present laws. Nevertheless, SOPA is the wrong way to go about it because it violates the Constitution, the very object which provides them the rights which they are trying to enforce. Furthermore, Capitalism won't survive without laws because at the end of the day somebody has to carry the big stick to protect the companies interests.
 
[quote name='Clak']Bear with me for a moment, but have you ever thought about how much music is downloaded simply because it is free? Meaning that otherwise, somebody wouldn't download it anyway? See that's where the money lost argument falls apart. No one knows how much is lost to piracy, because you can't say for certain that every downloaded *thing* would have otherwise been bought.

Again, I'm not defending anyone here. I agree that music is cheap enough and open enough now that nobody should be pirating. The film industry still has a ways to go though.[/QUOTE]


That just gets at the point that it's impossible to truly estimate how much money is lost by piracy.

As you note, it doesn't in anyway justify people pirating things, so it's a fairly irrelevant point IMO. Only use is for shooting down the estimated losses touted by labels as they're definitely inflated from assuming every illegal download is a lost sale.

But that's a fairly minor point in the grand scheme of things. The much bigger issue is that so many people have no problems committing a legal and moral wrong just because digital goods aren't tangible and piracy is so easy.
 
to me it's interesting about the debate regarding piracy = losing money. I have personally purchased so many movies and cds and vinyls and spent money on concerts to see bands live that I would have never bothered to even know exist if it wasn't for listening to their music via pirating it by either myself or friends.

My favorite band I would have never known taken the chance to listen to them if I didn't download one of their albums off of napster 12 years ago. Because of that, I have not only purchased all theirs cds, I've purchased their overpriced merch at their concerts, concert tickets(one time spending $175 for vip tickets), all their vinyls, etc. So without piracy in a sense, they would have never received my money at all. There are other musicians I have done the same for too.

obviously this is not a general case, but I do know a good amount of individuals that do the same as me and a bunch that do not. I think to prevent "piracy" the mentality towards what it entails has to change, and honestly that is not something you can change with a restrictive law over night blocking it. In the age of technology, people will ALWAYS find a way around it, maybe not instantly but eventually. So many tools at our disposal to go beyond, so really it lies in the mentality of individuals and how they perceive the "right" or ability to take intellectual property or to know it comes from somewhere that deserves their money.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']Wait a second. Let's back up a bit. Patent and Copyright law is part of the US Constitution. Over the years it has been modified both in favor of the people and corporations. So given these facts ripping movies or music violates copyright law. Your argument is flawed because these companies are not creating new laws to make it illegal for you to rip movies because as stated above it already is. They're trying to get laws enacted which merely enforce the present laws. Nevertheless, SOPA is the wrong way to go about it because it violates the Constitution, the very object which provides them the rights which they are trying to enforce. Furthermore, Capitalism won't survive without laws because at the end of the day somebody has to carry the big stick to protect the companies interests.[/QUOTE]
Copyright laws aren't supposed to compensate for shitty services, that's not why they exist. Copyright laws exist so that the creators can profit from their work for a set period of time. That's different from having extra laws enacted which somehow protect your industry while harming someone else. You said they can use laws to win customers, and that's not how our system works.
 
[quote name='AshesofWake']to me it's interesting about the debate regarding piracy = losing money. I have personally purchased so many movies and cds and vinyls and spent money on concerts to see bands live that I would have never bothered to even know exist if it wasn't for listening to their music via pirating it by either myself or friends.

My favorite band I would have never known taken the chance to listen to them if I didn't download one of their albums off of napster 12 years ago. Because of that, I have not only purchased all theirs cds, I've purchased their overpriced merch at their concerts, concert tickets(one time spending $175 for vip tickets), all their vinyls, etc. So without piracy in a sense, they would have never received my money at all. There are other musicians I have done the same for too.

obviously this is not a general case, but I do know a good amount of individuals that do the same as me and a bunch that do not. I think to prevent "piracy" the mentality towards what it entails has to change, and honestly that is not something you can change with a restrictive law over night blocking it. In the age of technology, people will ALWAYS find a way around it, maybe not instantly but eventually. So many tools at our disposal to go beyond, so really it lies in the mentality of individuals and how they perceive the "right" or ability to take intellectual property or to know it comes from somewhere that deserves their money.[/QUOTE]



A lot of bands have realized that potential benefit and have started taking advantage of it.

i.e. a lot of bands stream their new albums for free on their websites, myspace pages etc.

So they're are ways bands can take advantage of the positives of people getting their music for free, and many have.

That doesn't really apply to movies, e-books, video games etc. though. Those media don't have concerts for artists to make money from, merchandise sales are a lot lesser.

Plus those things just don't have the replay value of music. If someone sees a pirated movie or reads a pirated e-book, they're probably not all that likely to go out and buy it. At least relative to music where people can listen to an album tons of times over the years, and thus may go buy the CD, or buy an artists other albums. People don't re-watch movies or re-read books with the same frequency that they listen to albums by their favorite bands.

And I think that's why movies and e-books are stuck on DRM and not going with an open format like Music. They just don't have as many other ways to make money aside from selling the content itself. An act of piracy their isn't as likely to spur a purchase as it is in music.

[quote name='Clak']Copyright laws aren't supposed to compensate for shitty services, that's not why they exist. Copyright laws exist so that the creators can profit from their work for a set period of time. That's different from having extra laws enacted which somehow protect your industry while harming someone else. You said they can use laws to win customers, and that's not how our system works.[/QUOTE]

But piracy is one thing that infringes on a creators right to profit. People get hung up on the labels, publishers etc. because they hate corporations, hate how the labels have gone after absurd lawsuits of pirates etc.

But at the end of the day, when someone uploads a file illegally, they're infringing on the copyright holder's (the creator and the publisher) sole right to distribute that material. And they're cutting into the creator's profit margin as some people will pirate who would have bought if they had no other way to own a copy of the material. It's impossible to estimate than number of lost sales, but there is some amount of lost sales there for sure.
 
[quote name='AshesofWake']to me it's interesting about the debate regarding piracy = losing money. I have personally purchased so many movies and cds and vinyls and spent money on concerts to see bands live that I would have never bothered to even know exist if it wasn't for listening to their music via pirating it by either myself or friends.

My favorite band I would have never known taken the chance to listen to them if I didn't download one of their albums off of napster 12 years ago. Because of that, I have not only purchased all theirs cds, I've purchased their overpriced merch at their concerts, concert tickets(one time spending $175 for vip tickets), all their vinyls, etc. So without piracy in a sense, they would have never received my money at all. There are other musicians I have done the same for too.

obviously this is not a general case, but I do know a good amount of individuals that do the same as me and a bunch that do not. I think to prevent "piracy" the mentality towards what it entails has to change, and honestly that is not something you can change with a restrictive law over night blocking it. In the age of technology, people will ALWAYS find a way around it, maybe not instantly but eventually. So many tools at our disposal to go beyond, so really it lies in the mentality of individuals and how they perceive the "right" or ability to take intellectual property or to know it comes from somewhere that deserves their money.[/QUOTE]

The problem lies in the way we perceive intellectual property. If you look at it as tangible property then illegal downloading = stealing. However, the harm/damages of "stealing" intellectual property is more difficult to quantify then when dealing with real property. Thus, the ambivalence towards it.
 
[quote name='Clak']Copyright laws aren't supposed to compensate for shitty services, that's not why they exist. Copyright laws exist so that the creators can profit from their work for a set period of time. That's different from having extra laws enacted which somehow protect your industry while harming someone else. You said they can use laws to win customers, and that's not how our system works.[/QUOTE]

Wrong. Copyright law gives the creator a limited monopoly over his creation. No one else can tell him what to do with it, how to sell it or how to advertise it. The copyright holder is king. He or she does not have to cave to market demands nor does he or she have to provide us with any services. In other words copyright law does exactly what you claimed it doesn't do.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']The problem lies in the way we perceive intellectual property. If you look at it as tangible property then illegal downloading = stealing. However, the harm/damages of "stealing" intellectual property is more difficult to quantify then when dealing with real property. Thus, the ambivalence towards it.[/QUOTE]

Yep.

I think the ease of doing it, and the super minute risk of getting caught plays into it as well.

There aren't as many examples of people getting caught and punished for illegal downloads as there are for shoplifting and other forms of theft.

Without that public stigmatization of the act, society hasn't been engrained about the wrongness of piracy to the extent we have theft. Combine that with the intangible nature of digital goods, and there's just a huge moral failing regarding piracy.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']Wrong. Copyright law gives the creator a limited monopoly over his creation. No one else can tell him what to do with it, how to sell it or how to advertise it. The copyright holder is king. He or she does not have to cave to market demands nor does he or she have to provide us with any service. In other words copyright law does exactly what you claimed it doesn't do.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Copyright law gives the creator sole control over their creation during the copyright period.

They can choose to sign a contract with a publisher and give them sole distribution rights.

They can choose to publish it their selves and sell it for a super high price. Or choose to sell it only with DRM etc.

It's their creation, and there's to do with what they will until the copyright expires. They have, nor should have, any obligation to provide any kind of service to the public. No obligation to put it out DRM free, or price it cheaply etc.

If people aren't happy with how the creator/publisher choose to distribute or price the material, they should vote with their wallet and do without it. Or make use of one of the legal fair use exceptions like borrowing it from the library etc. Not being happy with DRM, pricing, etc. isn't an excuse for piracy.

Now there's more moral gray area with things like ripping a movie you own to a digital copy etc. While illegal, I don't personally have any moral qualms with people who do that as long as they keep the physical copy and never give away any digital copies. That's something that should be allowed under fair use laws, just like one can rip CDs or burn a copy for the car as long as they retain the original CD.

So that's far different than just obtaining an illegal copy and never paying for a legitimate copy.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']A lot of bands have realized that potential benefit and have started taking advantage of it.

i.e. a lot of bands stream their new albums for free on their websites, myspace pages etc.

So they're are ways bands can take advantage of the positives of people getting their music for free, and many have.

That doesn't really apply to movies, e-books, video games etc. though. Those media don't have concerts for artists to make money from, merchandise sales are a lot lesser.

Plus those things just don't have the replay value of music. If someone sees a pirated movie or reads a pirated e-book, they're probably not all that likely to go out and buy it. At least relative to music where people can listen to an album tons of times over the years, and thus may go buy the CD, or buy an artists other albums. People don't re-watch movies or re-read books with the same frequency that they listen to albums by their favorite bands.

And I think that's why movies and e-books are stuck on DRM and not going with an open format like Music. They just don't have as many other ways to make money aside from selling the content itself. An act of piracy their isn't as likely to spur a purchase as it is in music.



But piracy is one thing that infringes on a creators right to profit. People get hung up on the labels, publishers etc. because they hate corporations, hate how the labels have gone after absurd lawsuits of pirates etc.

But at the end of the day, when someone uploads a file illegally, they're infringing on the copyright holder's (the creator and the publisher) sole right to distribute that material. And they're cutting into the creator's profit margin as some people will pirate who would have bought if they had no other way to own a copy of the material. It's impossible to estimate than number of lost sales, but there is some amount of lost sales there for sure.[/QUOTE]Eh, doesn't really infringe on their right to profit, more their ability to.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']Wrong. Copyright law gives the creator a limited monopoly over his creation. No one else can tell him what to do with it, how to sell it or how to advertise it. The copyright holder is king. He or she does not have to cave to market demands nor does he or she have to provide us with any services. In other words copyright law does exactly what you claimed it doesn't do.[/QUOTE]
I said nothing of the sort. I said copyright law doesn't exist to help anyone win customers, which it doesn't. You win customers by being the best at the service you provide. Copyright just protects the creator's right to do what they want with what they create.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Exactly. Copyright law gives the creator sole control over their creation during the copyright period.

They can choose to sign a contract with a publisher and give them sole distribution rights.

They can choose to publish it their selves and sell it for a super high price. Or choose to sell it only with DRM etc.

It's their creation, and there's to do with what they will until the copyright expires. They have, nor should have, any obligation to provide any kind of service to the public. No obligation to put it out DRM free, or price it cheaply etc.

If people aren't happy with how the creator/publisher choose to distribute or price the material, they should vote with their wallet and do without it. Or make use of one of the legal fair use exceptions like borrowing it from the library etc. Not being happy with DRM, pricing, etc. isn't an excuse for piracy.

Now there's more moral gray area with things like ripping a movie you own to a digital copy etc. While illegal, I don't personally have any moral qualms with people who do that as long as they keep the physical copy and never give away any digital copies. That's something that should be allowed under fair use laws, just like one can rip CDs or burn a copy for the car as long as they retain the original CD.

So that's far different than just obtaining an illegal copy and never paying for a legitimate copy.[/QUOTE]Ripping movies is only illegal if they contain software which prevents their copying. Which unfortunately most do. Now I'm sure somewhere out there a MPAA lawyer would disagree with me and say it's illegal across the board, but then I'd expect that.
 
[quote name='Clak']I said nothing of the sort. I said copyright law doesn't exist to help anyone win customers, which it doesn't.[/QUOTE]

Did you not write the following "Copyright laws aren't supposed to compensate for shitty services, that's not why they exist"? If yes, then my response still stands.
 
[quote name='Clak']Ripping movies is only illegal if they contain software which prevents their copying. Which unfortunately most do. Now I'm sure somewhere out there a MPAA lawyer would disagree with me and say it's illegal across the board, but then I'd expect that.[/QUOTE]

Even if it were legal for you to rip a movie, it would still be illegal for you to share said copy or to keep the copy after having sold or returned the movie. That's why piracy fails this specific test. It was precisely this type of behavior that led to shrink wrap licenses and totally fucked up copyright law any removed any semblance of common sense that might have existed once upon a time.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']Did you not write the following "Copyright laws aren't supposed to compensate for shitty services, that's not why they exist"? If yes, then my response still stands.[/QUOTE]
Yep, I wrote it, you're still wrong. Copyright laws, as I said, protect the holder's right to control the property. Copyright laws don't protect companies from losing money due to them providing shitty services.

It's the this simple, evolve or die. Either give consumers what they want, or they're going to find alternatives. You'll never stop it, it's futile to try. They can either waste money on fighting it and trying to maintain the status quo, or they can face facts and give people what they want. Now I'll give the music industry credit, they've basically done all I think they can as far as being open goes. The film industry is still lagging behind.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']Even if it were legal for you to rip a movie, it would still be illegal for you to share said copy or to keep the copy after having sold or returned the movie. That's why piracy fails this specific test. It was precisely this type of behavior that led to shrink wrap licenses and totally fucked up copyright law any removed any semblance of common sense that might have existed once upon a time.[/QUOTE]
So lets throw decades of law out the door and make it illegal to make backups of media. You're not preventing criminals from breaking the law, you're punishing honest people who just want a backup of something in case the original is damaged.

Hell, I remember back in elementary school that none of the floppy disks (5 1/4 oh yeah) we were given were originals, they were all the back ups that the teacher had made of the originals. Now though, that wouldn't be possible most likely.
 
[quote name='Clak']Yep, I wrote it, you're still wrong. Copyright laws, as I said, protect the holder's right to control the property. Copyright laws don't protect companies from losing money due to them providing shitty services.

It's the this simple, evolve or die. Either give consumers what they want, or they're going to find alternatives. You'll never stop it, it's futile to try. They can either waste money on fighting it and trying to maintain the status quo, or they can face facts and give people what they want. Now I'll give the music industry credit, they've basically done all I think they can as far as being open goes. The film industry is still lagging behind.[/QUOTE]

You are still wrong because copyright law provides a copyright holder with a nearly absolute monopoly. It protects their content absolutely from you the consumer or their competitors. Their loses can be contributed to people stealing their shit. So yes copyright law protects them against such behavior.

The law gave them the hammer from day one but unfotunately there was no one there to swing it. I loathe making such a statement but there is no point in beating around the bush. I hope we never get to the day the law is enforced to a T because it will greatly hinder our development as a society and slow the decimination of knowledge.
 
[quote name='Clak']So lets throw decades of law out the door and make it illegal to make backups of media. You're not preventing criminals from breaking the law, you're punishing honest people who just want a backup of something in case the original is damaged.

Hell, I remember back in elementary school that none of the floppy disks (5 1/4 oh yeah) we were given were originals, they were all the back ups that the teacher had made of the originals. Now though, that wouldn't be possible most likely.[/QUOTE]

What decades of law? You mean the decades of law that required you to delete your backup copy upon selling the original. Or do you mean the industries response to piracy by create shrink wrap licenses (which are abhorring). We did this to ourselves.

P.S. public use exception might still protect teachers today although I assume most companies require a multi licenses today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top