Comics piracy crackdown

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

In the end, that is all that matters. Both are wrong, and copyright violation should not be belittled as a "non-crime" that doesn't hurt anybody.

Unless it IS a non crime that doesnt hurt anyone!

has there been any conclusive evidence of it hurting anyone yet?
or any conclusive evidence of it benefitting the 'owner'?

Its getting watered down as being bad for numerous reasons one for example being the goverment of our country violating copyright and not suffering any penalties!

http://thefrontline.v3.co.uk/2010/04...ces-for-l.html


Red faces for Labour as it uses copyrighted work illegally

Despite months promoting the rights of copyright holders with its Digital Economy Bill, the government has caused something of a furore after revelations that its recently crowdsourced campaign poster has breached copyright laws.

The poster is intended to parody Tory leader David Cameron by placing his head on an image of Ashes to Ashes cop DCI Gene Hunt sitting atop his Audi Quattro.

However, the image was not free-to-use but in fact owned by production company Kudos which produces the show for the BBC, and as such subject to strict copyright laws.

The Tories also broke the copyright on the image by repurposing it with the slogan: "Fire up the Quattro, it's time for a change".

Copyright expert Robin Fry from law firm Beachcroft LLP said the poster was a clear example of copyright infringement and highlighted the lack of understanding of the issues among the political parties.

"This is what's called a flagrant infringement of copyright. It's painful that the main political parties are vehement about protecting copyright in parliament but so cavalier outside," he said.

The BBC has also been reported as saying it was not happy with the use of the image, although Fry argued it was unlikely the corporation would take any action in this instance.

"Whether the BBC would choose to bring an infringement action at the time of this election campaign is doubtful given its statutory commitment to impartial political reporting," he said.

According to an earlier report in The Times, Labour's leadership team of Lord Mandelson, Douglas Alexander and Harriet Harman had taken responsibility for OK'ing the poster.

All of which means, in a rather satisfying twist, that Mandelson, the 'subservient plaything' of Hollywood lobbyists and architect of the Digital Economy Bill, has himself been implicated in a spot of copyright infringement.

In the immortal words of DCI Hunt, "You're nicked, sunshine".

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by junkyardwillie

I think by far Marvel has it right with their web application. Pay one flat fee and get access to their entire database. It still needs some work because it doesn't have everything on it and their equivalent iPad app does not connect you to your Marvel account but its a step in the right direction. At $60 for access to a full database of comics with a great app player its almost crazy not to use it just for the ease of use, having to hunt down comics online is way too time consuming right now, I think people would be willing to pay.

If you think Marvel's app is great, you've obviously never used CDisplay, because they are worlds appart in terms of usability.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

In the end, that is all that matters. Both are wrong, and copyright violation should not be belittled as a "non-crime" that doesn't hurt anybody.

Nor should it be bigged up to make people think it is more serious than it actually is. There has always been people who either get their entertainment for free or get it cheaper by going to an unauthorised source for it.

Nothing is different now that it is easier to monitor. If anything it is easier to deal with -- you see it, you get it removed. End of problem. No state surveillance required, no need to fill the prisons up with petty "criminals".

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by stustaff

Unless it IS a non crime that doesnt hurt anyone!

has there been any conclusive evidence of it hurting anyone yet?
or any conclusive evidence of it benefitting the 'owner'?

The only independent (ie not commissioned and funded by entertaiment industry) research I have seen said that copyright infringers spend more on legitimate digital content than non-copyright infringers. The entertaiment industry's own research was recently debunked by the US Government. Oddly enough, neither of these have been reported in the mainstream news media.

Entertainment industry profit has also risen at the same time that copyright infringement became a mainstream activity. I personally believe that this is because the people who used to buy unauthorised content on CDR are now downloading it themselves for free and then spending the money they would have spend on CDRs on legitimate content. I don't have any proof, but it does fit with all the known facts.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Nor should it be bigged up to make people think it is more serious than it actually is. There has always been people who either get their entertainment for free or get it cheaper by going to an unauthorised source for it.

Nothing is different now that it is easier to monitor. If anything it is easier to deal with -- you see it, you get it removed. End of problem. No state surveillance required, no need to fill the prisons up with petty "criminals".

"bigged up", I like that expression

Anyway, it is not my intent to suggest to put everyone who ever downloaded a file from the darknet in prison . (Though I do think differently about uploaders). But people should be aware and believe that unauthorized copying outside the personal space is wrong, hurts people and there really is no need for it because so many legally free options are available. Is there really such a need to get "this" book and not something else? If there is a general consensus on that, then those that still do it, won't matter in the whole scheme of things. Sort of like the boxes with newspapers at the side of the road in the US. You can freely open them, but you are expected to put in the money afterwards.(I haven't been in the US for a number of years, I don't know if they still exist or are locked down now). Now there will always be some freeloaders, but most people try to be honest and pay.

When so many people believe freely copying is their right, that is when things become dangerous. That is when creativity doesn't get its reward anymore (not even a chance of getting one).

[TGS]

Sheesh...call this a thread. I looks like agreement and harmony are breaking out all over.

Kenny, Kenny, where are you?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by TGS

Sheesh...call this a thread. I looks like agreement and harmony are breaking out all over.

Kenny, Kenny, where are you?

Hey! Stop That. I've had my say here. No need to get personal!

[J. Strnad]

Okay, I still don't understand what "to restrict copying is artificial" means. I don't understand your use of the word "artificial" here. Are you saying that it's part of our human nature to make copies of things? I don't want to discuss the point until I know what you're saying because I don't want to put words in your mouth. Can you expand on this, please?

We do "own" things that are not physical objects. These are exclusive rights, such as the right to publish and distribute a work, the right to adapt it to other media, etc. If someone does these things without authorization, it's infringement on your right, more akin to trespassing than to theft, more like being in someone's house if they don't want you there...you aren't taking away their right to be there, but you're infringing on their right to decide who can come in the door.

I see a lot of irrelevant arguments in this thread. Yeah, Marvel and DC have behaved like scum toward creators. That doesn't give the world the right to infringe on their rights. Yes, infringing might actually increase sales and profitability, but that's not the consumer's decision to make, it's the company's. And yes, infringement will always be with us, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't oppose it. Mosquitoes will always be with us but we still swat the ones that annoy us the most.

But overall, I think publishers should just issue reasonably priced downloads of their books, encourage people to pay for the content if they want creators to continue creating it, swat the most egregious infringers, and not sweat the small stuff.

I think the point about copies is a reasonable one. I don't care how many copies of my stuff someone makes, how many devices they put it on, how many archive copies they make...copy away. I don't even much care if they give a copy to a friend or two. Books have always enjoyed a pass-around circulation.

If they start distributing these copies in mass quantities, for money or free, that's publishing and that's an infringement. Then it's up to me or my publisher to decide if it's worth smacking 'em down.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

Okay, I still don't understand what "to restrict copying is artificial" means. I don't understand your use of the word "artificial" here.

Here.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

If someone does these things without authorization, it's infringement on your right, more akin to trespassing than to theft, more like being in someone's house if they don't want you there...you aren't taking away their right to be there, but you're infringing on their right to decide who can come in the door.

Thank you. I think that's quite a fitting analogy, actually.

But overall, I think publishers should just issue reasonably priced downloads of their books, encourage people to pay for the content if they want creators to continue creating it, swat the most egregious infringers, and not sweat the small stuff.

Well said.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Try infringement, no one wants to agree with Harlan Ellilson. Not even after a blow to the head.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

But overall, I think publishers should just issue reasonably priced downloads of their books, encourage people to pay for the content if they want creators to continue creating it, swat the most egregious infringers, and not sweat the small stuff.

Would be great if they'd do it. One of the biggest problems though is Geo Restrictions. A lot of places you simply can't buy the ebook for any amount of money and so folks go looking for it by other means.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Is there really such a need to get "this" book and not something else? If there is a general consensus on that, then those that still do it, won't matter in the whole scheme of things.

It's more a case of you see it, you want it, you get it. There will be some people who will search for a specific book they have heard about and want to read, but I think those will be the minority. A lot of it tends to be in "packs" of books -- 1,000 scifi books, collection of Harry Potter / Stephen King books, etc. I would be surprised if more than 10% of the books that are downloaded actually get read.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

When so many people believe freely copying is their right, that is when things become dangerous. That is when creativity doesn't get its reward anymore (not even a chance of getting one).

I don't think there is any more people getting unauthorised content now than there ever has been, if you include all the people who used to buy it on CDR as well as the people who downloaded it.

But if writers are happy with getting 6p every time someone borrows their book from a (UK) library, I can't see why they wouldn't be just as happy if they got 6p every time someone downloaded it instead. For a lot of people, the internet has actually taken over the role of a library.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

I think the point about copies is a reasonable one. I don't care how many copies of my stuff someone makes, how many devices they put it on, how many archive copies they make...copy away. I don't even much care if they give a copy to a friend or two. Books have always enjoyed a pass-around circulation.

If they start distributing these copies in mass quantities, for money or free, that's publishing and that's an infringement. Then it's up to me or my publisher to decide if it's worth smacking 'em down.

Does that just apply to your new re-write, and anything else you might have written? Only with the one that I downloaded you give people the right to distribute it as they see fit, with no real restrictions at all other than making it into a real book or making a film of it.

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

If you think Marvel's app is great, you've obviously never used CDisplay, because they are worlds appart in terms of usability.

It is flawed, but they do work to improve both it and the amount of comics so they deserve credit for it even if they lose most of that credit for the poor selection and pricing in the ipad app.