Court Rules That File-Sharing Service Infringed Copyrights

[Dusty Bottoms]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

And knowing it will not benefit them in the slightest, why should creators create? And what will you share when creators stop creating?

Steamboat Willy cartoons?

Filesharing will only result in a steady loss of new things to share, because no one will see the point in creating something that will get them nothing. The only things left will be old content and absolute junk. You're welcome to it.

Creators will create even at pain of death, the whole internet is a place where creation flourishes, and I find it disturbing that the only point you see in creating is for monetary benefit. Your statement also belies a fundamental misunderstanding of file sharing and what it is. File-sharers buy plenty of stuff, arguably more than non-file sharers. And there are and will be ways to monetize 'free'. Just because you don't have to pay, doesn't mean you won't (the recent indie games bundle proved that, and also, bonus we got a lot of those games open-sourced).

I don't know what to say to you or any of the other sky-is-falling-because-of sharing people on here. There IS no way to convince you. Not with logic, not with facts, not with empirical evidence. You and the others continue to purposefully spread misinformation about subjects not a single one of you has any real grasp upon. It's actually quite embarrassing how many of you are out of touch with what's happening, but it no longer angers me.

We won.

Adapt or die.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

You first. Heh.

[Dusty Bottoms]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

You first. Heh.

I did, I am, I will. My company will be publishing 2 books a month completely FREE and available on all major torrent networks / private darknet sites,/ p2p apps, but you will have a choice to support the writers by buying extended versions on Amazon and others, or merchandise or other added value propositions. After a set amount of time or a set amount of money is made (still in discussion) on a book, said book will be released into the public domain so that other people can try to make money from it or derivatives and mash-ups of the work.

So yes I am adapting, and it's the most exciting time for any creative person at any time in history. The clock isn't winding backward. The business models of old won't work for much longer.

Adapt or die.

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter View Post
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.
Who is harmed?

What about autors, publishers, all that.
When you go to work every day, you expect your boss to pay you right ?
Authors writing a book, they decide what to do. If they wanna say "I want to earn a living with my book", they have a right to do that.
Then, it's up to you to decide you you want the book or not. Don't want to pay, live without it.

[afa]

Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms

File-sharers buy plenty of stuff, arguably more than non-file sharers.

Ah, yes. The age-old argument of file-sharers everywhere. Never mind the fact that I doubt you have any evidence to support the view that they buy more than non-sharers. I mean, who cares about proof, right? Oh, and keep in mind that this is coming from someone who downloads his fair share of media from the likes of Pirate Bay and EZTV.

I don't know what to say to you or any of the other sky-is-falling-because-of copyright on here. There IS no way to convince you. Not with logic, not with facts, not with empirical evidence. You and the others continue to purposefully spread misinformation about subjects not a single one of you has any real grasp upon. It's actually quite embarrassing how many of you are out of touch with what's happening, but it no longer angers me.

Simply changing a word or two in that quote (as I have done above), and that argument could easily be used both ways.

We won.

Yes, clearly. That's why publishers are obsolete, copyright doesn't exist, and all content creators and artists are providing their content for free. Oh, wait... that hasn't happened. Hmmmm... Maybe you haven't won yet, then? Who knows, maybe you will. And I'm fine with that. I have no vested interest in the publishing industry, so if you do win, I win, too.

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

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.

That's a good point. Life + 70 really does seem excessive. I'm no writer, but even if I was, I think I'd be okay with it expiring with my death, and maybe even earlier, like 25 years.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

What about autors, publishers, all that.
When you go to work every day, you expect your boss to pay you right ?
Authors writing a book, they decide what to do. If they wanna say "I want to earn a living with my book", they have a right to do that.
Then, it's up to you to decide you you want the book or not. Don't want to pay, live without it.

Of course.

But this is not an either or proposition.

In times past, some bought the book, others borrowed it either from an original purchaser, or from a library. Or bought it, but for $1 at a yard sale.

It's not much different now. When the price is right, most people buy the titles they are interested in.

A lot of the downloaders either cannot find a title they want legitimately (e.g. Harry Potter), or they are ratpacks, who in real life would not buy the title, and will likely never read it.

Look at the top downloaded title, Kama Sutra, and tell me if you really believe that the vast majority of "pirates" will ever read it. Or if they would have purchased it in real life.

[EowynCarter]

A lot of the downloaders either cannot find a title they want legitimately (e.g. Harry Potter), or they are ratpacks, who in real life would not buy the title, and will likely never read it.

Look at the top downloaded title, Kama Sutra, and tell me if you really believe that the vast majority of "pirates" will ever read it. Or if they would have purchased it in real life.

That's quite true. Majors, publishers. tends to say one download = one lost sale, that don't really work out.
Some have enough sense to pay the the music / movies / books they really like. Others are so used to get everything for free they won't think a second about buying. That's the real problem there.

[Dusty Bottoms]

Originally Posted by afa

Ah, yes. The age-old argument of file-sharers everywhere. Never mind the fact that I doubt you have any evidence to support the view that they buy more than non-sharers. I mean, who cares about proof, right? Oh, and keep in mind that this is coming from someone who downloads his fair share of media from the likes of Pirate Bay and EZTV.

For the sake of brevity, and because I've been having this same argument with the same people for the last year and a half, I omitted evidence. But, here it is again, for the hard of learning

Here's a random one because I'm just so tired of this argument and I'm not digging up ten just to prove the point: http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=138587

Simply changing a word or two in that quote (as I have done above), and that argument could easily be used both ways.

Simply changing the word of any argument can alter the meaning completely and make the argument into something else. Faulty logic, and ill thought out. If I call a monkey a politician it doesn't make the politician a monkey (although nine times out of ten it would be hard to check). Not really worth a rebuttle, but, hey, I've got some time to spare at the moment.

Yes, clearly. That's why publishers are obsolete, copyright doesn't exist, and all content creators and artists are providing their content for free. Oh, wait... that hasn't happened. Hmmmm... Maybe you haven't won yet, then? Who knows, maybe you will. And I'm fine with that. I have no vested interest in the publishing industry, so if you do win, I win, too.

Publishers aren't obsolete, nobody said they were (except you) but they do need to change their business model and take their head out of the sand before they do become obsolete. They have to adapt to an ongoing situation (which they seem to be wilfully ignoring, like many people in this argument). As to copyright it has become effectively useless for independent creators who can't hope to financially defend the illusion of their ownership. Copyright benefits corporations and those who can afford the lawyers to protect the copyright, nobody else.

And when I say we (italics all mine), I do mean all of us. I mean the creators, the audience and anyone else who wants to see creativity flourish and not be nailed down by corporates.

That's a good point. Life + 70 really does seem excessive. I'm no writer, but even if I was, I think I'd be okay with it expiring with my death, and maybe even earlier, like 25 years.

Well I'm so glad that you don't have an iron in this fire, yet you want to give us all a heads up one what we as creators should do. However would we make decisions on what we should do creatively without people to tell us what they think who don't really care one way or the other?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms

Here's a random one because I'm just so tired of this argument and I'm not digging up ten just to prove the point: http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=138587


:

Better one here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...media.business

Not all downloaders will buy anything, of course, which is probably why afa is so disbelieving of this well documented fact.

[afa]

Thanks for that link, mr. ploppy. That article certainly is better than the questionable one given earlier. And, I might add, quite illuminating.

Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms

For the sake of brevity, and because I've been having this same argument with the same people for the last year and a half, I omitted evidence. But, here it is again, for the hard of learning

Your Join Date is given as April 2010, so I doubt you've been giving this argument for a year and a half, at least not over here. So the fact I haven't seen that evidence isn't because I'm hard of learning, it's because I don't follow you around on the Internet or in your personal life to know what arguments you've made elsewhere.

Here's a random one because I'm just so tired of this argument and I'm not digging up ten just to prove the point: http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=138587

Any researcher worth his salt will tell you that survey results are debatable. And specially when it comes to surveys paid for by a party or group with a vested interest in one particular outcome... well.

This survey was paid for by Vuze; hardly an objective third party. Would you also gladly accept the results of a survey paid for by Koch Industries (Google 'Koch Industries' and 'biggest polluter' to see why I mentioned them) that showed there is no such thing as global warming?

Simply changing the word of any argument can alter the meaning completely and make the argument into something else. Faulty logic, and ill thought out. If I call a monkey a politician it doesn't make the politician a monkey (although nine times out of ten it would be hard to check). Not really worth a rebuttle, but, hey, I've got some time to spare at the moment.

You're right. Your answer wasn't worth it. Mainly because it was way off base. The change I made didn't change the meaning. It merely turned your argument back against you. Something I did to demonstrate that such righteous indignation can be said by anyone about anything.

Publishers aren't obsolete, nobody said they were (except you) but they do need to change their business model and take their head out of the sand before they do become obsolete.

And I guess we should all just take your word for it.

They have to adapt to an ongoing situation (which they seem to be wilfully ignoring, like many people in this argument).

I assure you, there is plenty of ignorance on display here on both sides of the fence.

As to copyright it has become effectively useless for independent creators who can't hope to financially defend the illusion of their ownership.

If someone can't afford to spend what it takes to defend their ownership, that's unfortunate, but it's not an argument in favour of abolishing copyright altogether. One could, for example, create an organisation or group that would pool together resources to fight such battles on behalf of authors that can't do it on their own.

Copyright benefits corporations and those who can afford the lawyers to protect the copyright, nobody else.

Laws allowing individuals to launch suits against corporations that have harmed them are also only beneficial to those that can afford the legal fees. Since not everyone can, should we just get rid of them entirely? Just say 'tough luck' to, say, the people whose water supply has been poisoned by scrupulous chemical plants?

And when I say we (italics all mine), I do mean all of us. I mean the creators, the audience and anyone else who wants to see creativity flourish and not be nailed down by corporates.

Neither you nor any one of the other 'good guys' have said anything that proves abolishing copyright will necessarily help creativity flourish, nor that existing copyright is preventing the same. You say it is, but that's just your words against someone else's.

I am absolutely willing to see the supposed errors of my ways, with a sound argument based on facts and irrefutable logic and evidence, but no one here has yet succeeded in doing that. All I see are personal anecdotes, hearsay, vague but grandiose platitudes, and self-serving proclamations.

Well I'm so glad that you don't have an iron in this fire, yet you want to give us all a heads up one what we as creators should do. However would we make decisions on what we should do creatively without people to tell us what they think who don't really care one way or the other?

What a pointless remark. In any case, I assure you, your own opinions on what other creators should do carry absolutely no more (or less) weight than mine. So please, do leave the attitude at home.

And for the record, I couldn't care less about "what [you] should do creatively without people to tell [you] what they think".

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

If we have no right to read books, why bother teaching children how to read?

This is drifting way way off topic....

[perversity]

From an artistic standpoint, copyrighting has very little to do with monetary gain. It's more about protecting what I created. If I write a love song dedicated to my wife, and someone in marketing hears it and likes it, they should not be allowed to use that same song as the background music in a commercial for herpes treatment, or any other type of commercial unless I give my consent as an artist. If it does take some sort of financial gain to give my consent, that is my perogative as the creator of the song, my RIGHT as a copyright holder.
The life of the creator seems like a good lifespan for copyrights. Any longer or shorter is not fair and does not benefit society( IMO)

[Dusty Bottoms]

Originally Posted by afa

Thanks for that link, mr. ploppy. That article certainly is better than the questionable one given earlier. And, I might add, quite illuminating.


Your Join Date is given as April 2010, so I doubt you've been giving this argument for a year and a half, at least not over here. So the fact I haven't seen that evidence isn't because I'm hard of learning, it's because I don't follow you around on the Internet or in your personal life to know what arguments you've made elsewhere.


Any researcher worth his salt will tell you that survey results are debatable. And specially when it comes to surveys paid for by a party or group with a vested interest in one particular outcome... well.

This survey was paid for by Vuze; hardly an objective third party. Would you also gladly accept the results of a survey paid for by Koch Industries (Google 'Koch Industries' and 'biggest polluter' to see why I mentioned them) that showed there is no such thing as global warming?


You're right. Your answer wasn't worth it. Mainly because it was way off base. The change I made didn't change the meaning. It merely turned your argument back against you. Something I did to demonstrate that such righteous indignation can be said by anyone about anything.


And I guess we should all just take your word for it.


I assure you, there is plenty of ignorance on display here on both sides of the fence.


If someone can't afford to spend what it takes to defend their ownership, that's unfortunate, but it's not an argument in favour of abolishing copyright altogether. One could, for example, create an organisation or group that would pool together resources to fight such battles on behalf of authors that can't do it on their own.


Laws allowing individuals to launch suits against corporations that have harmed them are also only beneficial to those that can afford the legal fees. Since not everyone can, should we just get rid of them entirely? Just say 'tough luck' to, say, the people whose water supply has been poisoned by scrupulous chemical plants?


Neither you nor any one of the other 'good guys' have said anything that proves abolishing copyright will necessarily help creativity flourish, nor that existing copyright is preventing the same. You say it is, but that's just your words against someone else's.

I am absolutely willing to see the supposed errors of my ways, with a sound argument based on facts and irrefutable logic and evidence, but no one here has yet succeeded in doing that. All I see are personal anecdotes, hearsay, vague but grandiose platitudes, and self-serving proclamations.


What a pointless remark. In any case, I assure you, your own opinions on what other creators should do carry absolutely no more (or less) weight than mine. So please, do leave the attitude at home.

And for the record, I couldn't care less about "what [you] should do creatively without people to tell [you] what they think".

I'm not arguing with you, as I'm not arguing with anybody else on this site about this topic. It's worse than religion, it's worse than politics and just as dull as both. You do a bit of filesharing on public torrent sites (by your own admission) you change people's words and then interpret the new sentence then defend your re-interpretations, you ask for evidence, then when evidence is given you deny the evidence as not being good enough. You're not a creator, you don't seem to have any kind of position apart from arguing the toss, and then when you do argue something you omit the evidence that you asked for in others when they argue with you.

tl:dr These arguments are pointless unless you're actively doing something to change the outcome. And if you're not, it's just hot air. By his actions shall she know him.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by kennyc

This is drifting way way off topic....

You think?

[afa]

Ha ha. Quite right.

And so, I'll cease and desist. Apologies for helping to hijack it.