Court Rules That File-Sharing Service Infringed Copyrights

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

If by theft you mean unauthorised content consumption, good luck with that. The generation that you allowed to grow up with free downloads will be raising their own children soon, and they will almost certainly be passing on their habits.

...

Sorry you have such a poor opinion and understanding of human nature, both social and individual.

Things change, we learn, we survive.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Sorry you have such a poor opinion and understanding of human nature, both social and individual.

Things change, we learn, we survive.

You don't think children learn from their parents?

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

You don't think children learn from their parents?

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

-- Bob Dylan

[Jaime_Astorga]

Usually, when a sociological change is brought about by a shift in technology, it tends to stick. At least, until some other big technological change occurs.

Also, there won't be propaganda coming from just one side; there are also people that are trying to promote a culture of sharing. Case in point:



Well, whatever happens, these are sure going to be some interesting culture wars. I guess this court decision is a part of that, too.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I've probably said this before on here, but there is basically 2 types of downloader -- try before you buy, and if it is free I will have it. Most people will fall into both camps to varying degrees. Try before you buy, you have the potential to make money from them either now or in the future, but only if they download (and read) your book.

The others, you won't make anything from them either way, and there's only a slim chance that they will read your book anyway. They are basically just collecting files for the sake of collecting them. The ones they do read, at worst some second hand dealer would be losing out on a few pennies.

The second type, if they read a book, they will probably tell they liked it to some of those of the first type, so they might be useful too.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Sorry you have such a poor opinion and understanding of human nature, both social and individual.

Poor opinion of human nature? Not really. The darknet was primarily started, and remains driven, by access barriers erected by corporations to purchasing content, and corporate abuse of various laws such as first sale.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

The second type, if they read a book, they will probably tell they liked it to some of those of the first type, so they might be useful too.

They might also buy related merchandise, assuming any exists. But getting them to read it after they have downloaded it would be the major stumbling block.

Think of it like going into the biggest book shop in the world, and everything is free for one day only. Nobody is going to just choose one book, then take it home and read it.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

-- Bob Dylan

Teenagers often rebel against their parents. Maybe the children of the download generation will rebel by actually paying for digital content?

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Teenagers often rebel against their parents. Maybe the children of the download generation will rebel by actually paying for digital content?

who knows, stranger things have happened.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

It doesn't mean the task of providing workable security is impossible.

Actually, it is impossible. The problem is that the people who don't know any better are the ones that keep pushing fundamentally broken DRM on us. I'm sure such people believe they can hire a company to come up with some other security model to use, never realizing the futility of their efforts.

Forget the fact that DRM doesn't work. The basic problem that DRM is trying to solve is unsolvable. You can't just plug in another model to replace it.

[Jaime_Astorga]

Agreed with Shaggy. Anybody who thinks it is actually possible to "solve" the present situation using technology would do well to read the following articles:

The Analog Hole: Another Argument Against DRM
The Futility of Digital Copy Prevention
Pushing the Impossible

It is usually not wise to underestimate technology's abilities to solve problems, but neither should one forget that there are limits to what is possible. Besides, if any entity can actually stop us from manually jotting down an eBook we are reading, from hiding our files away from prying eyes, or from sharing data with people by physically walking over to them and giving them storage devices, then by God is a little copyright infringement going to be the least of our problems.

[kennyc]

Well whether technology will solve it or not really depends on what you think the problem is and what you think will "solve" it.

[Jaime_Astorga]

I think the problem DRM is trying to solve can be stated as "prevent unauthorized copying and distribution of books/songs/movies" (where the limits for authorized copying are left to the sensitives of the person in question). Does anybody object to this definition? And, if so, how do you think it should be modified?

EDIT: On a second thought, I just thought of a more specific way to phrase it. "Allow some entity (Alice) to prevent a second party (Bob) who is authorized to read/listen/watch an arbitrary book/song/movie [given to him by Alice] from copying this work as a digital file and distributing it to an unauthorized third party (Carol)". Of course, for practical purposes, authorization would consist of "lives somewhere restrictions don't apply" and "has paid for it".

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

I think the problem DRM is trying to solve can be stated as "prevent unauthorized copying and distribution of books/songs/movies" (where the limits for authorized copying are left to the sensitives of the person in question). Does anybody object to this definition? And, if so, how do you think it should be modified?

Remove the word copying it isn't a problem. 10 gazillion copies don't matter unless they're distributed.

[Jaime_Astorga]

I left it in because one can imagine a business which would be happy to make you buy a separate copy for each device you own (which falls under the "limits for authorized copying" mentioned above). Anyways, I tried to make the definition a little better in my edit.