You Will Never Kill Piracy, and Piracy Will Never Kill You

[DrNefario]

With torrents, the downloader is also an uploader, effectively. You are sharing with other people as you download something.

The first uploader, the person who copied the item, is in many ways more altruistic than any of the downloaders. He/she has bought the book, copied it and shared it. Okay, probably without having to scan and proof it, and probably in a tit-for-tat to get other free stuff, but not necessarily. It could be a political statement, or it could be an act of preservation.

And once something is out there, then it's out there. There's not much you can do by then.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't think anyone's suggesting that people who circumvent copy protection for material they've legally bought should be prosecuted, but that's very different to illegally downloading material that's commercially available. That is wrong, and should be prosecuted.

And "illegally downloading" is very different from uploading to file-sharing sites.

Time for an analogy. Let's say John smokes pot on occasion; sometimes he shares it with a friend. John's dealer is Mary, who has dozens of other customers. Mary gets the stuff from a much bigger supplier who has dozens of other dealers.

All are engaging in illegal acts. Who should you go after? Which prosecution potentially has the biggest impact on the problem?

[HarryT]

Of course it makes sense to go after the site operators, but I'm afraid I can't agree with your suggestion that downloaders should be "left alone".

[Iznogood]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Of course it makes sense to go after the site operators, but I'm afraid I can't agree with your suggestion that downloaders should be "left alone".

It's not about leaving anybody alone. It's about spending the resources where you achieve the most while keeping the collateral damage at a minimum. Courts have decided that IPs are not enough to identify a person, and I seem to remember some cases where IPs have been ruled not to identify the household either (or do I imagine things now?).

Anyway, it's difficult to find enough evidence for a court trial, and I for one thinks that changing the law to allow evidence that can be faked (e.g. IPs) is a defeat for the legal systems. The only ones where the gain is bigger than the cost for going after are the big uploaders (I think seeders are the correct term), who make things available for a long time. There are few of them, and they seed the stuff for so long a time that it should be possible to get solid evidence (e.g. tapping the internet connection to actually analyze the traffic)

[Quexos]

I have little consideration as to what copyright infringement means, since the definition was made, lobbied and pushed by corporations. They are judge, juror and executioner. So the definition cannot be upheld to defend all parties and interests but only one side.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Contrary to what some people seem to think, copyright infringement does not require a profit motive. The offence is still the same, regardless of whether you give it away for free, or charge for it.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Quexos

I have little consideration as to what copyright infringement means, since the definition was made, lobbied and pushed by corporations. They are judge, juror and executioner. So the definition cannot be upheld to defend all parties and interests but only one side.

How do you think the definition should look?

[Quexos]

In my opinion ? Copyright infringement should apply to those making a profit off any given product they do not own and that's all.
When a society has a system that looks at one side of the story, or after the interests of some groups or a race over another, that's when democracy dies.
Our capitalistic systems are based on profit and power for minorities, those who have the technology, who create products for a market and decide who can get it, where and at what price. Whoever disagrees or bypass the system is an infringer, a criminal or a pariah.
I think this is a very narrow minded philosophy, abiding by the rules to the letter, never dare step a foot off the zebra crossing, never dare free think, do as your government tells you and shut up ...
I for one, do not subscribe to it.
I believe there is a balance out there between a copyright and freedom (as the title of this thread suggests).
Look at this new law in Japan, they can now take away your most fundamental right by putting you in jail just for downloading a song. Imagine the world tomorrow where corporations and technology overlords rule everywhere. a song will cost 1000 dollars and will only be affordable by an elite minority, same for a movie etc ... You want to see the latest Spielberg production cause you heard it was great ? well come back in 10 years cause studios may decide it won't be released in your country cinemas for that long, that will give you the time to save the money needed to pay for whatever price the admission ticket costs.

But why stop there, food is a product that is worth money too, you can't afford it ? you must starve cause it belongs to those who produce it and "stealing" it would be wrong ...

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

How do you think the definition should look?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Quexos

In my opinion ? Copyright infringement should apply to those making a profit off any given product they do not own and that's all.

I think that's too narrow. I think the key element is distribution, because even though every free download is not a lost sale, any widespread distribution logically will have SOME impact on the profit that the creator deserves from his or her creation.

And in fact the doctrine of fair use has allowed copying; the challenge is to define the parameters of fair use for digital content.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Quexos

I have little consideration as to what copyright infringement means, since the definition was made, lobbied and pushed by corporations. They are judge, juror and executioner. So the definition cannot be upheld to defend all parties and interests but only one side.

So you think that it's OK for the scum who upload my software to torrents to get away with it, just because they aren't making a profit from it? I've spent 20 years of my life writing it, but it's just peachy for these bastards to give it away for free?

You'll forgive me, I hope, if I beg to differ with you about that.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Quexos

In my opinion ? Copyright infringement should apply to those making a profit off any given product they do not own and that's all.

I buy movies, books, games and so forth because it's illegal to simply download them. If copyright infringement only applied to those making a profit and downloading for your own personal use was perfectly legal, well I'd never spend another penny. I'd download everything I wanted and more.

There's a reason I download public domain books from here or guttenberg rather than paying for them on Amazon. It's legal to do so and costs me nothing

Unfortunately, so would I think many many more people and I'm not sure any authors, movie producers or game makers would continue doing their jobs for very much longer.

Copyright has to exist if we wish to retain the same levels of content we enjoy today imo. If anyone could download for free (non-commercially) then the amount of content would nose dive and we'd likely only see labours of love actually made, or hobbiest movies/games/books. Might still be a few good products, but on the whole I think we'd lose heavily.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by elemenoP

No way. You make them WALK THE PLANK of course!

eP

Pirates made the good guys walk the plank. The authorities just string up pirates.
Apache

[CallOfCth'reader]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So you think that it's OK for the scum who upload my software to torrents to get away with it, just because they aren't making a profit from it? I've spent 20 years of my life writing it, but it's just peachy for these bastards to give it away for free?

You'll forgive me, I hope, if I beg to differ with you about that.

You write software? I thought you were a proofreader!

What is the function of the software you produce?

[darksaber35]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So you think that it's OK for the scum who upload my software to torrents to get away with it, just because they aren't making a profit from it? I've spent 20 years of my life writing it, but it's just peachy for these bastards to give it away for free?

You'll forgive me, I hope, if I beg to differ with you about that.

Ohh dear the truth tumbles out for all to read as you obviously have a vested in interest in bringing in draconian laws to the UK to protect you own business MR H.

Considering the British government does not have a pot to piss these days apart from the odd wave the flag event like the Olympic games and has been cutting public spending for years to the bone across vital services like the the national health service, police, fire , ambulance services & others.
You want the government to throw away even more money chasing after file sharers ?

Add to all that the British army is having to shed another 20,000 troops because we cant afford them who are already overstretched and dieing in Afghanistan fighting a war that nobody wanted .
Then there's the prison system that is bursting at the seems full of criminals and the government yet again cant afford to build new ones for real criminals , and you want to government to spend more taxes on these scum as you say.

Maybe you should donate some of your own cash to the the Anti piracy groups if you you have business interests that need protecting so you don't waste what little government money there is left on a lost cause.

Better yet why don't you start a fund raising campaign on Mobileread and see how much money you can raise and i will match it match it pound for pound and i will donate mine to WikiLeaks

http://wikileaks.org/

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by usuallee

I think the article is absolutely spot on. It's not advocating unauthorized downloading (I refuse to call it theft or piracy, because it's neither), it's merely outlining today's reality.

Whatever your stance on downloading, from being in favor of jail time for downloaders, to donation-based anarchy (not naming any names), or somewhere in between, you have to admit one self-evident truth: that the Film/Music/Book industries have failed to adapt to the modern realities of the digital world (to put it mildly) & have handled the situation in just about the worst, most brainlessly heavy-handed way possible.

I believe in paying for my content - to support the artists & creative types, NOT to line the pockets of fat cat executives. With entities like the RIAA using scare tactics, bullying, and trying to throw people in jail or fine them into bankruptcy, and trying to pass ridiculous legislation like SOPA, I certainly have zero sympathy for big media companies.

BINGO. It's like the Hydra example above. You cannot kill copyright infringement. It existed before (cassette mixtapes, CD-Rs, VHS) and it will continue to exist.

I don't mind lining executive's pockets, but if they are doing things like suing downloaders for more money than they make in a lifetime, for the equivalent of copying a $10 CD, I refuse to give them money. I won't buy new music now, period, if the artist/label is associated with the RIAA - not even my favorite bands. I'll go to their concert and support them. I'm on the tipping point with the MPAA the same way.

I'm more than willing to buy non-DRM'd digital content. I have almost zero interest in DRM'd digital content - I'll buy hardcovers and blu-rays instead and play old games. BDs are copy protected, but that's a joke, frankly, and besides, it's transparent (plays on any BD player, can resell, etc).

A blu-ray that only plays on Samsung players? Zero interest. That's what DRM'd books are to me. Oooh, joy, pay more than a paper book for something that only plays on Amazon-branded players. No, no thank you.

BTW: The Steam analogy is right as far as the service provided, but Steam has DRM (albeit somewhat unoffensive DRM). I buy very little from there also...to the point I barely play PC games any more.

[Jozawun]

Originally Posted by darksaber35

Ohh dear the truth tumbles out for all to read as you obviously have a vested in interest in bringing in draconian laws to the UK to protect you own business MR H.

Considering the British government does not have a pot to piss these days apart from the odd wave the flag event like the Olympic games and has been cutting public spending for years to the bone across vital services like the the national health service, police, fire , ambulance services & others.
You want the government to throw away even more money chasing after file sharers ?

Add to all that the British army is having to shed another 20,000 troops because we cant afford them who are already overstretched and dieing in Afghanistan fighting a war that nobody wanted .
Then there's the prison system that is bursting at the seems full of criminals and the government cant afford to build new ones for real criminals , and you want to government to spend more taxes on these scum as you say.

Maybe you should donate some of your own cash to the the Anti piracy groups if you you have business interests that need protecting so you don't waste what little government money there is left on a lost cause.

Better yet why don't you start a fund raising campaign on Mobileread and see how much money you can raise and i will match it match it pound for pound and i will donate mine to WikiLeaks

http://wikileaks.org/

There you are, Harry old son.
You have to forego copyright protection.
Or else you'll be solely responsible for the Poms wasting 170+ years (1839 til now) trying to conquer Afghanistan