Court Rules That File-Sharing Service Infringed Copyrights

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Just out of interest, what do gun makers market their goods as being for? Shooting clay targets, something like that?

Well, let's think about what guns are used for...

self-defense
hunting
target shooting
defending one's country
protecting ones-self from one's country

...

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by kennyc

protecting ones-self from one's country

Oh... you mean, when them revenooers come around? Actually, that would count as self-defense, too.

Anyway, there are licenses, safeties, gun cabinets and ordinances to make sure guns aren't being improperly used by the majority of the population. Those security devices are what keep the gun companies from getting sued for selling potentially lethal products.

Sound familiar?

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Oh... you mean, when them revenooers come around? Actually, that would count as self-defense, too.

Anyway, there are licenses, safeties, gun cabinets and ordinances to make sure guns aren't being improperly used by the majority of the population. Those security devices are what keep the gun companies from getting sued for selling potentially lethal products.

Sound familiar?

So DRM should be built into file sharing services? Or the onus is on them to build in some way (God knows how) to make sure that all distributed content is authorized?

Luqman

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

So DRM should be built into file sharing services? Or the onus is on them to build in some way (God knows how) to make sure that all distributed content is authorized?

Luqman

Well, file-sharing services should not be distributing copywritten works without permission. Using DRM on copywritten files would prevent file-sharing services from distributing them to those who should not get them... or, rather, they might distribute them, but they wouldn't be openable.

That is, it would in a perfect world, where DRM, like, worked and stuff.

But since it's not a perfect world, something other than the DRM we know and loathe would be required. Just as gun protection requires more than just one security device, and the cooperation of multiple parties for it to be effective, so the dissemination of online files would depend on a host of security measures to protect them, only one of which might be DRM.

[EowynCarter]

That is, it would in a perfect world, where DRM, like, worked and stuff

.

But since it's not a perfect world, something other than the DRM we know and loathe would be required.

Yes, something like a drm free, easy, decently priced legal offer. We shouldn't have to make our way though DRM, geo-restrictions and all that.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Well, let's think about what guns are used for...

self-defense
hunting
target shooting
defending one's country
protecting ones-self from one's country

...

The only one that doesn't involve using a gun to kill something would be target shooting. So it would seem to me that the main use of a gun would be to kill? How do different gun manufacturers make their product more appealing than that of other gun manufacturers?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

Yes, something like a drm free, easy, decently priced legal offer. We shouldn't have to make our way though DRM, geo-restrictions and all that.

We also shouldn't have to worry about getting shot. However, since there is that ever-present danger, from our streets to our schools, security steps must be taken to protect individuals.

I realize no one likes DRM or other forms of security. But unfortunately, in a world where people must make a living, and other people are fond of taking things without paying, security of some kind is needed to make the system work (to allow the best producers to willingly produce). Wishing for a security-free world is as impractical as expecting people to just stop stealing.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

The only one that doesn't involve using a gun to kill something would be target shooting.

Which is essentially practice for killing things...

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

How do different gun manufacturers make their product more appealing than that of other gun manufacturers?

Name recognition, performance and quality, mainly. You'll note that guns are not advertised in terms of which ones require a lesser license than its competitor.

Hmm... maybe we should quietly step away from the gun parallels and comparisons...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

....
Hmm... maybe we should quietly step away from the gun parallels and comparisons...

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

We also shouldn't have to worry about getting shot. However, since there is that ever-present danger, from our streets to our schools, security steps must be taken to protect individuals.

I realize no one likes DRM or other forms of security. But unfortunately, in a world where people must make a living, and other people are fond of taking things without paying, security of some kind is needed to make the system work (to allow the best producers to willingly produce). Wishing for a security-free world is as impractical as expecting people to just stop stealing.

I think it's rather obnoxious to compare copywrite infringement to people getting shot and possible killed. People must make a living, fine. Find another way to do it. If no-cost copying is killing your old business model, find a new one. How about a patronage system? You get paid up front to write a novel or short story collection which is delivered to your patrons upon completion. If it leaks out, write it off as an advertising cost. There are many digital artists who use just this model to make their skills into something that helps pay the rent. If you get big enough, you might make a living just doing that.
I don't think any one has a right to make a living as a writer. If they can figure out to do it, good. If they can't, they can join the rest of us who actually do some other job (teaching, researching, whatever) to pay the bills.
How many writers of worth actually wrote as their primary means of livelihood? How many of the moderns? How many of the pre-moderns?


What should not be done is some type of invasive "trusted computing" program which restricts my ability to what I want with the property that I paid for with the money that I earned from my labor. And if DRM or some similar system is going to be effective, that's what is going to have to happen.

Luqman

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

I think it's rather obnoxious to compare copywrite infringement to people getting shot and possible killed.

True... so we'll stop right there.

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

People must make a living, fine. Find another way to do it...

Actually, we don't even have to be talking about a living... though there's no reason why a good writer shouldn't be able to do that, if their work is popular and in high enough demand.

On the other hand, the fact that the internet as-is is difficult to profit from does not make it right to steal from an author who asks to be paid for his work, whether it's a large or small amount of money. That's the real issue here... not the potential size of the income.

In the same way that you have a right to wages from your employer, and a store owner has a right to payment for his goods, an author has a right to be paid what they ask for (or to have their product go unsold until they find a price the market will bear). Those scenarios require contracts or security to make them work. We're just talking about a new scenario, that requires its own protections to work.

Personally, I have serious doubts that I could go online, tell the world "Pay me now for the book I'll give you in 9 months," and expect to see more than a few pennies for it. As business models go, that one would be a bomb. There may be other methods, but few can compete with the good old-fashioned time-honored tradition of paying for a product when you obtain it.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I realize no one likes DRM or other forms of security. But unfortunately, in a world where people must make a living, and other people are fond of taking things without paying, security of some kind is needed to make the system work (to allow the best producers to willingly produce). Wishing for a security-free world is as impractical as expecting people to just stop stealing.

The only problem with that is that DRM only affects people who pay for their ebooks, it doesn't affect people who don't pay for them in any way at all. People who "steal" them are free to use them on any reader they want to read them on, and will still be able to long after their current reader falls to bits through age, or the publisher goes out of business.

Something for you to think about: (should be in the Pirate Bay thread, but would fit here too)

Before unauthorised downloading became a mainstream activity, a lot of people used to buy pirate content on CDR / DVDR, typically about £3 for a copy of a new release film/movie that they were only likely to watch once. Those are all people who were prepared to pay for their digital copies, but unfortunately for the content producers they were not prepared to pay the amount the producers wanted for that content. So they turned to a cheaper alternative.

During the period that unauthorised downloading has been mainstream, those same content producers have reported an increase in the sale of digital content. I believe that these things are interelated, and the money they used to spend on pirate copies, and are now saving by downloading their own unauthorised content instead, is now being spent on legitimate content.

They don't pay for everything they consume, fair enough, but if unauthorised downloading was forced back underground they would just go back to spending that money on pirate copies.

[perversity]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

I don't think any one has a right to make a living as a writer.
Luqman

I don't think non-creative people have a right to dictate what artistic people can or can't do for a living

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

The only problem with that is that DRM only affects people who pay for their ebooks, it doesn't affect people who don't pay for them in any way at all. People who "steal" them are free to use them on any reader they want to read them on, and will still be able to long after their current reader falls to bits through age, or the publisher goes out of business.

That is only because the existing security system (DRM by itself) doesn't work. It doesn't mean the task of providing workable security is impossible.

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Something for you to think about...

Are you saying that people are buying more legit content because of the money they are saving downloading illegitimate content?

Tell me how that makes sense.

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by perversity

I don't think non-creative people have a right to dictate what artistic people can or can't do for a living

Well, think again. Not only we can (like in talking all kinda nonsense, that internet is famous for), but in fact as a people who pay money for what we need - we must.
Not, that I am all for poor or hobby writers, but talks about the right of a writer to be make a comfortable living and his children to be paid 50 years after he cannot be paid is a little too much to swallow. Everybody should be rewarded, but the current copyright and drm system are so bad, that their good purpose and goals are as useful as water in rubbing alcohol for quenching the thirst.
Think about painters for a second, once you sold a picture you don't tell the new owner what to do and how and for how long to display the new painting.