Court Rules That File-Sharing Service Infringed Copyrights

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by dmikov

Nobody is advocating piracy as an only way to distribute creative work, not that I read it in this thread anyway. So please stop building a straw man.
But many pointing out the roots and extenuating circumstances as to why we sometimes forced to it.

"Extenuating circumstances?"

We're not talking about food for the starving, jobs for the poor or medicine for the sick. We're talking about ebooks, mostly for entertainment. They are not vital to anyone's survival... which means that no one has a right to obtain them. Suggesting that procuring ebooks against copyright limitations, breaking DRM or pirating the books without paying for them is somehow a necessary evil to satisfy the greater good is so much hogwash.

That's also why the above arguments against DRM, copyright, etc, are not to satisfy the greater good, they are to satisfy personal and non-vital desires.

Now, of course, I'm sure the rejoinder will be: "Well, since it's so unimportant, what difference does it make whether or not I do it?"

And to answer that question, I invite anyone to look up the meaning of the phrase "society."

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by afa

You want to strip DRM for personal use, because you have multiple devices or whatever? Go ahead. You want to be able to lend it to a family member or a couple of your friends? That's fine by me.

But uploading it on the darknet so millions of people can get it for free, and deny the author his right to earn a living? Sorry, but that's not something I will ever, ever agree with.

Circumvention of copy protection is a criminal offence, unauthorised distribution of digital content is just a civil offence (at the moment). If you are going to pick and choose which laws you will obey and which laws you will ignore, shouldn't the severity of the offence be considered? If not, why not?

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

And to answer that question, I invite anyone to look up the meaning of the phrase "society."

What interest do you have in society? Your position is the one you think will put the most money in your pocket. What of the public domain? What of fair use rights? What of things not being made available? What of industry giants working together to maintain the status quo instead of competing? What of buying congresscritters to pass laws that prop up their buisness models instead letting them fail in the face of how they treat their customers?

How could anyone who cares about society support a system that keeps the ability to copy and improve from the people for up to 150 years or longer? Who knows how long people will live and how many copyright extensions there will be? To copy and improve is so natural it predates the human species the first stone tools were used by Homo habilis. I promise you, they made copies.

How can anyone who cares about society want to deny fair use rights by adding drm? How could anyone who cares about society pass the DMCA to make it illegal to break locks that prevent fair use?

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Circumvention of copy protection is a criminal offence, unauthorised distribution of digital content is just a civil offence (at the moment). If you are going to pick and choose which laws you will obey and which laws you will ignore, shouldn't the severity of the offence be considered? If not, why not?

Not in france
I think in term of : Does it harm someone ?
Does it harm someone if I download content without paying for it -> Yes
Does it harm someone if I de-drm the book to share it -> Yes.
Does it harm someone if de-drm the books I paid for so I can use them -> No.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

What interest do you have in society?

Your words suggests that it is in the interest of society simply to get things for free. No: It is in the interest of society to get things, period. Copyright and DRM laws are intended to encourage people to produce, so society will get things--because it is assumed (and backed up by historical precedent) that society, left to its own devices, will simply take them at the first opportunity and give nothing to the creator, leaving them little incentive to create.

So, by supporting copyright and honoring DRM, you are actually supporting society by providing for more things to be created for it. By doing the opposite, you are causing society to lose the potential creations by people who, seeing how little protection themselves and their work would receive, didn't create them and decided to go work for the supermarket instead.

[Iphinome]

How are these things created for society when society never gets them? Walt Disney died in 1966 when do we get the short film he made with a mouse that completely ripped off a Buster Keaton movie? He did it 82 years ago! When are the people protected by copyright going to pay for that protection by letting go? But maybe you're right after all he would have never created his ripoff if he didn't know there'd be a DMCA and the copyright would last until 2023 at minimum even though copyright law at the time allowed a maximum of 56 years.

By supporting US copyright laws as they stand you discourage new creation because nothing in the past 80 years can be used to build on. There was plenty of new material before 1978 before life+ copyrights in the US I don't see how you could argue it takes 100 years of copyright to get anything, patents get by with only 20 years.

Anyway, why should there be any incentive to create? If the stuff isn't going to end up in the public domain why should society care if anyone makes money or makes it at all. You care because copyright is how you line your pockets but what have you ever given in exchange for the protection? Your profits are taxed but your creation hasn't been yet and won't be till after you die, long after you die. You took from my culture to create, my language, my history things that belong to the human race to me, to your plumber, to the cashier at the supermarket. You owe them. You owe me. So here's the deal, you get a reasonable finite amount of time and then you return what you took then we both have an incentive for copyright. Let's call it 28 years, that's a long time and if you're still alive in 28 what the hell have 28 more and then no more that's it, come up with something else. Don't whine and bitch about what's yours because 56 years is long enough.

[guyanonymous]

To greatly reduce/end piracy?

1. Lower prices.
2. Shorter copyright - I suggest <10 years.
3. World-wide access to content legally.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

How are these things created for society when society never gets them? Walt Disney died in 1966 when do we get the short film he made with a mouse that completely ripped off a Buster Keaton movie?

You're not getting it: You can have it, anytime, by paying for it! It's out there! You can buy it! Or not! Your choice!

Whereas, without copyright protections, Walt Disney might have made his living selling tires, and there would be no cartoon to have! At all! You have no choice, because there is nothing to choose! See how it works?

This obsession with getting things for free needs to be excised from the collective consciousness. Nothing of entertainment value HAS to be free! That's a fringe benefit that will not destroy our society if it is not obtained.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

You're not getting it: You can have it, anytime, by paying for it! It's out there! You can buy it! Or not! Your choice!

Whereas, without copyright protections, Walt Disney might have made his living selling tires, and there would be no cartoon to have! At all! You have no choice, because there is nothing to choose! See how it works?

This obsession with getting things for free needs to be excised from the collective consciousness. Nothing of entertainment value HAS to be free! That's a fringe benefit that will not destroy our society if it is not obtained.

we can have them ? any time ? brilliant ! so nobody will mind then if then next big parody mash-up to be published is "steve jordan's science fiction story, now with smurfs" ? how about if someone wants to turn that into a movie ? to a soundtrack of music by the Beatles ? and with a cameo of Mickey Mouse ?

or maybe someone would like to publish, say, i don't know, a lexicon about the harry potter books. that would be all right, then ?

or how about some film students would like to do a remake of Gone with the Wind set in 2050 New York. no worries, right ? Margaret Mitchell's estate shouldn't have anything to say about that ?

all that stuff (and a lot more which is less ridiculous) is what abusively-long, bloated copyrights deprive SOCIETY of.

and given that every single one of the works i cited above is derivative of / inspired by works that came before it, i really have a hard time seeing how anyone can find it legitimate to refuse to return the favour and let the next generation build on their work, just like they built on the previous generations'.

[Iphinome]

It isn't free god dammit, the problem is not me its you not respecting PUBLIC property. Who did Disney pay for the story of Snow White or Cinderella or for that matter steamboat Willy. He took it. You take. Copyright is what pays for things you cannot treat it like a hammer or a pair of boots, you buy those but your copyright is not something you pay for until it expires. You are the one who doesn't get it why should anyone pay you for what already belongs to them. You are the one with no respect for copyright because it isn't for you its for everyone. YOU abuse the protection. YOU violate the social contract when you keep for yourself, and for money the shared culture. I care about something bigger but I don't aspire to be Gordon Gekko and I'm no writer myself, I'm clearly bad at explaining things so go read Cory Doctorw or Larwence Lessig's works sometime. Learn that there's a balance that YOU ARE NOT PAYING FOR.

This obsession that copyrights should be free and eternal needs to be from the collective consciousness. Nothing of entertainment value CAN be made without drawing on what came before. Pay for what you took or honestly you're nto deserving of copyright protection at all.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Circumvention of copy protection is a criminal offence, unauthorised distribution of digital content is just a civil offence (at the moment). If you are going to pick and choose which laws you will obey and which laws you will ignore, shouldn't the severity of the offence be considered? If not, why not?

Not really. The law is the law, breaking it is breaking it, the punishment is the punishment.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

How are these things created for society when society never gets them? Walt Disney died in 1966 when do we get the short film he made with a mouse that completely ripped off a Buster Keaton movie? He did it 82 years ago! ...

Your argument is irrelevant because the law exists. If you break it you are a criminal. If you don't like it then work to change it so you are no longer a criminal.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

we can have them ? any time ? brilliant ! so nobody will mind then if then next big parody mash-up to be published is "steve jordan's science fiction story, now with smurfs" ? how about if someone wants to turn that into a movie ? to a soundtrack of music by the Beatles ? and with a cameo of Mickey Mouse ?
...

You are confusing apples and oranges. It's one thing to purchase and enjoy a book, a totally different thing to use it to create something else. That's is exactly what the copyright and intellectual property laws are in place for to manage these things.

[afa]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Circumvention of copy protection is a criminal offence, unauthorised distribution of digital content is just a civil offence (at the moment). If you are going to pick and choose which laws you will obey and which laws you will ignore, shouldn't the severity of the offence be considered? If not, why not?

Firstly, I admit I wasn't aware of that. To me, it seems logical that distribution of content should be a more serious offense. So, I don't get that. It seems stupid.

As for the answer to your question - what EowynCarter said.

@zelda_pinwheel,
I don't think society is being deprived. I mean, who the heck wants a Sci-Fi story with Smurfs and Mickey Mouse? Not me!

Okay, on a serious note, though. Why would copyright prevent derivative works? It would prevent using the exact existing creations (like Mickey Mouse), but I don't think it will cease the creation of wonderful new projects that were inspired by Disney, or George Lucas, or Tolkien, or whoever.

Installing Mickey in your Sci-Fi story isn't merely derivative or inspired, it's you ripping off someone else's imagination and creativity. It's hanging on to Disney's coattails. It's mooching off their success. It's lazy. The examples you gave might have been 'inspired' by others, they might have been derived, but they weren't literally the same. They weren't transplanted wholly and exactly from someone else's work. This approach doesn't encourage creativity, it stifles it. Everyone will just end up putting Mickey Mouse/Hans Solo/Gandalf in their own half-assed creations, instead of doing something original.

@guyanonymous,

To greatly reduce/end piracy?

1. Lower prices.
2. Shorter copyright - I suggest <10 years.
3. World-wide access to content legally.

1. Agree
2. Shorter, fine. But less than 10 years is probably too short.
3. Hell yes!

[rogue_librarian]

Less than 10 years is too little, yes. Let me play devil's advocate here for a second. Why do we have copyright at all? Because the creators of content should be given an incentive to create, they should be able to live off their work without being ripped off left and right. Makes sense, doesn't it?

You write a book, you get exclusive rights to that book, sell it to a publisher, people buy it. Everybody's happy. Now, let's consider the duration of said period of protection. For those who don't know, it's currentliy life + 70 years (!) in most jurisdictions.

Do you really think people would be creating less if their exclusivity rights expired, say, 10 years after their death? Or even with their death? Heck, what about 25-30 years after creation? The current situation only serves big corporations, perhaps the heirs of creative people, but rarely the artists themselves. Discuss.