Secret Copyright Law Reported

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

That will change when, instead of the RIAA thugs trying to destroy 9-year-olds and grandmothers with multi-million dollar lawsuits, they try to get them in prison. You can't suddenly criminalize something done by hundreds of millions of people of every age, race, creed, and economic class and expect it to work.

I don't quite see it this way. I don't believe hundreds of millions of users are doing filesharing on the darknet. Maybe hundreds of thousands, at most. The vast majority do believe that people deserve to be paid for music, books, software, etc. And if there are grandmothers among the filesharers they are more likely to number in the hundreds. The 9-year-olds just don't know what they are doing and can't be prosecuted even if they murder someone. But as always, parents are responsible. But anyway, most filesharers fit quite a different profile. Not exactly people of "every age, race, creed, and economic class".

But I do share privacy concerns.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The 9-year-olds just don't know what they are doing and can't be prosecuted even if they murder someone.

That depends where they live. In Scotland, the "age of criminal responsibility" is 8; in the rest of the UK it's 10. There was a very famous murder case here in the UK a few years ago where two 10-year-old boys abducted and murdered a 2-year-old; both boys were convicted of murder and imprisoned. See here for more details.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by tompe

Why is that reasonable? One way to tackle the issue and not giving governments more power is to change the copyright laws to force a change in business models.

Another way is to not change the copyright laws and force a change in business models

HansTWN - Lots of people make unauthorised copies of some of what they use. Very few people *only* rely on unauthorised copies. The music industry strategy of writing off people who make some...

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

But anyway, most filesharers fit quite a different profile. Not exactly people of "every age, race, creed, and economic class".

I have been pirating software, video, music, and now books for close to 20 years now-- back to when "pirating software" meant exchanging 5 1/2 floppy discs, "pirating music" involved a cassette tape, and "pirating movies" involved 2 VCRs hooked together and a rental tape. I have never met in the "real world" anyone not completely happy to accept free software, free movies, free songs, or free books when you offer it to them. (One of them was a biblical literalist Southern Baptist pastor who not only accepted cracked databases of bible translations I provided but also had an odd obsession with the movie Titanic and gleefully accepted a VCD copy while the movie was still in the theaters.) You are kidding yourself if you don't think millions upon millions upon millions of people are doing it. It is only on the internet that I meet the rare individual who turns up their nose on free stuff.

[kennyc]

Well preachers don't have a monopoly on morality by a long stretch of the imagination, just look at the child abuse, cheating on spouses, monetary theft etc.

As far as piracy (or theft as I like to call it) I can't say I've never done it, but I don't make it standard policy and that is where the issue is. The internet and computers have made theft of intellectual property, identities, etc. much easier than it was in the past. Thus the problem is bigger and the reason why publishing companies and authors (particularly) are concerned. There are many reasons for being an author, but if it is to make a living then you must be able to generate income with your product. If the majority of people simply steal the work because they can then there will be fewer and fewer good authors in the business. The only ones left will be those with an agenda of some kind.

I have no issues with users who make copies or conversions for their own use, but I do have a problem with those who never purchased the product in the first place.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Jonas777

Really appropriate result for that video: "This video is not available in your country due to copyright restrictions. "

The lyrics, at least:

http://www.com-www.com/weirdal/dontd...dthissong.html

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That depends where they live. In Scotland, the "age of criminal responsibility" is 8; in the rest of the UK it's 10. There was a very famous murder case here in the UK a few years ago where two 10-year-old boys abducted and murdered a 2-year-old; both boys were convicted of murder and imprisoned. See here for more details.

I remember the case. I also remember that the UK was trying to get Australia to take them once released from prison, complete with new identities and the obligatory seal on the past conviction so that no one would know it was them.

Never did hear if they did end up in Australia or not though.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by wodin

West is Kanaga, Aleutian Islands, Alaska, USA. Go any farther west than that and and you will cross the International Date Line and be in the East.

Therefor, yes; West IS in the USA!

Actually West is not determined by the international date line but rather the 180 degree longitude thus Alaska is both the most West and most East as well as pretty far North.

Dale

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

I have been pirating software, video, music, and now books for close to 20 years now-- back to when "pirating software" meant exchanging 5 1/2 floppy discs, "pirating music" involved a cassette tape, and "pirating movies" involved 2 VCRs hooked together and a rental tape. I have never met in the "real world" anyone not completely happy to accept free software, free movies, free songs, or free books when you offer it to them. (One of them was a biblical literalist Southern Baptist pastor who not only accepted cracked databases of bible translations I provided but also had an odd obsession with the movie Titanic and gleefully accepted a VCD copy while the movie was still in the theaters.) You are kidding yourself if you don't think millions upon millions upon millions of people are doing it. It is only on the internet that I meet the rare individual who turns up their nose on free stuff.

If you do it among friends, that may not still not be 100% right, but I see no harm in doing that on a small scale. And when people exchange copied DVD's or CD's or something at least one of them has bought and paid for the item. A certain loss certainly is built into the system. They are not targets of such legislation. The internet changes this, instead of a few people you can instantly distribute among millions.

The success of itunes in making people turn to paid downloads instead of free bootleg versions proves that there are 10 times more people who do feel that paying is the right thing to do than those who don't. But it must be easy, convenient, and the pricing must be reasonable.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

A certain loss certainly is built into the system. They are not targets of such legislation.

Not these specific laws, maybe, but there are constant pushes by the entertainment lobbies to get laws passed that DO prevent any and all types of copying for any purposes whatsoever. For instance, attempts to end the "fair use" doctrine: http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/08...doch-vows.html

and attempts to close the "analog hole" with restrictions built into HDMI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-ba...ent_Protection

The various entertainment industries very much want not only control over every single viewing/listening/reading of their work, they want to be able to TRACK every use. Such as when Circuit City attempted to kill DVD with DIVX:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX

The powers-that-be in the entertainment industry are Orwellian thugs. And no number of laws and filters are going to keep their obsolete business model of artificial scarcity alive.

I'm not claiming that I know what will replace their artificial scarcity, futile copy-locking model. I don't know how content creators will manage to make money in the future. But I do know that the RIAA, MPAA, and their pet politicians will-- in the long term-- fail, dry up, and blow away.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Not these specific laws, maybe, but there are constant pushes by the entertainment lobbies to get laws passed that DO prevent any and all types of copying for any purposes whatsoever. For instance, attempts to end the "fair use" doctrine: http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/08...doch-vows.html

and attempts to close the "analog hole" with restrictions built into HDMI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-ba...ent_Protection

The various entertainment industries very much want not only control over every single viewing/listening/reading of their work, they want to be able to TRACK every use. Such as when Circuit City attempted to kill DVD with DIVX:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX

The powers-that-be in the entertainment industry are Orwellian thugs. And no number of laws and filters are going to keep their obsolete business model of artificial scarcity alive.

I'm not claiming that I know what will replace their artificial scarcity, futile copy-locking model. I don't know how content creators will manage to make money in the future. But I do know that the RIAA, MPAA, and their pet politicians will-- in the long term-- fail, dry up, and blow away.

There is no "artificial scarcity", the problem we have is exactly the opposite. Call it "artificial abundance". The only "natural" copies are the copies legally issued by the rights holders. An item can be easily recreated by people who have no right to do so, thus artificially creating a possible abundance that should not exist. And the best way forward would be a general consensus that creative people need to eat, too. Some people will never pay and really don't care about the items in question, they would not buy the music/books/DVDs even if they could only be obtained by paying and thus they don't figure in this equation.

If even the creative industries have no way to make money, then it is lights out for the western world, all jobs that are left for will be low paying manual labor. Almost all physical production is in Asia already, anyway.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Call it "artificial abundance". The only "natural" copies are the copies legally issued by the rights holders. An item can be easily recreated by people who have no right to do so, thus artificially creating a possible abundance that should not exist.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt of English not being your first language leading to you not knowing what "artificial scarcity" is. Give the Wikipedia entry a look:

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

ALL digital media has the potential of being copied to every person on the planet (who has a computer or other capable playback device) with a marginal cost per copy of essentially zero. The creators of the content try to restrict that happening by the means of encryption, threats of prosecution, and "social engineering" like this classic cluelessly lame video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up863eQKGUI

and this less well know but equally cluelessly lame sequel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUCyvw4w_yk

Computer media is the perfect example of artificial scarcity.

If even the creative industries have no way to make money, then it is lights out for the western world, all jobs that are left for will be low paying manual labor. Almost all physical production is in Asia already, anyway.

So? A fundamental shift came to human society when we went from hunter-gatherers to farmers. Another one came when we developed large-scale, assembly-line industrialization. Entire ways of looking at the world changed. We adapted, and moved on. We are in the midst of another fundamental shift in society. And no number of sabots thrown into the machinery will stop it. And generations from now, the only ones morning the buggy-whip makers will be elderly former buggy-whip makers.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt of English not being your first language leading to you not knowing what "artificial scarcity" is. Give the Wikipedia entry a look:

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

ALL digital media has the potential of being copied to every person on the planet (who has a computer or other capable playback device) with a marginal cost per copy of essentially zero. The creators of the content try to restrict that happening by the means of encryption, threats of prosecution, and "social engineering" like this classic cluelessly lame video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up863eQKGUI

and this less well know but equally cluelessly lame sequel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUCyvw4w_yk

Computer media is the perfect example of artificial scarcity.

So? A fundamental shift came to human society when we went from hunter-gatherers to farmers. Another one came when we developed large-scale, assembly-line industrialization. Entire ways of looking at the world changed. We adapted, and moved on. We are in the midst of another fundamental shift in society. And no number of sabots thrown into the machinery will stop it. And generations from now, the only ones morning the buggy-whip makers will be elderly former buggy-whip makers.

I have heard the term, what I mean is that it is a misnomer created by some people to justify certain behaviors. Yes, society has always changed. Cars have replaced horse buggies and new road and safety rules were created to apply to those new technologies. I am fully embracing the new age, I used computers since 1983 and started using smart phones with the old Treo 270. But just like it is not right to take that Ferrari parked at the side of the road with the key in it (even when nobody is watching and you are 100% sure you won't get caught) it is not right to take somebody else's ideas just because you can -- same as you don't take his or her physical possessions.

And you completely misunderstood my point. What YOU are suggesting is stifling creativity and innovation. A very important part of the driving force for any new creation has always been the prospect of some material gain. You are exactly suggesting that only the buggy whip makers survive because nobody wants to make new products. So why bother making cars, let everybody just keep using the old horse buggies. Think about it, if a new book in ebook form is not protected, why should a design for a revolutionary new car engine? You can copy the the design files just as well, shouldn't they be free? These days, ideas are the most valuable things in society.

Western society has to move forward and live off new ideas, and the only way to do it is to protect those ideas, not a free for all where everybody loses -- including you and me. You just don't realize the real price you were paying for those freebies if everyone did the same.

I have mentioned it before, there is a brave new way for a digital world where everything is given away free by the copyright holders. You might call it Google's vision, every second page of every ebook is an ad. Or a link to some Google service. And the music on your mp3 stops every 20 secs for an ad. That could very well become the brave new world you are helping to bring about. Seems like a nightmare to me, I would rather pay for it. There is no free lunch, as they say.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Given the explosion of illegal distribution of music, films, books, etc, that the Internet has promoted, it seems to me to be a very good thing that new copyright treaties should give governments the powers to tackle the issue internationaly.

However, such issues need to be discussed openly, not "behind closed doors".

Almost all treaties are negotiated behind closed doors. This is no different.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

If you do it among friends, that may not still not be 100% right, but I see no harm in doing that on a small scale. And when people exchange copied DVD's or CD's or something at least one of them has bought and paid for the item. A certain loss certainly is built into the system. They are not targets of such legislation. The internet changes this, instead of a few people you can instantly distribute among millions.

The success of itunes in making people turn to paid downloads instead of free bootleg versions proves that there are 10 times more people who do feel that paying is the right thing to do than those who don't. But it must be easy, convenient, and the pricing must be reasonable.

Even if he only makes one copy that he gives away, there is no telling how many people receive it from there. You are right that before the internet, the loss was much smaller. Not everyone was willing to do make the copies even if they were willing to use them.

The success of itunes has a lot to do with people deciding the price is low enough not to risk being sued. If the RIAA did not sue anyone, itunes would be much smaller today. At least IMO.