Is digital copyright incompatible with technology and / or democracy?

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by crossi

Barcey's and your statement are both true.

It is the needed methods of enforcement to be able to do so using their methods that would be a violation of rights. Sites shut down without due process? or how about yearly inspections of people's hard drives to look for pirated material? Random searches of people's drives? Intercepting and searching private internet messages randomly and without a warrent? I can't see any effective method that wouldn't drasticaly violate people's rights. Their current methods are ineffective.

Karma for you.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Rizla

It seems to me that from a purely technical aspect, piracy can be stopped, but only at the cost of damaging democracy.

It's not "damaging democracy" if the majority agrees to it.

Piracy can't be stopped at the cost of destroying the usefulness of the internet as a social and data exchange system. Piracy can possibly be more limited than it is now without that, but attempts to "end" it, as opposed to convincing people it's not worth the hassle (not, "convincing people they will face dire consequences if they visit pirate sites"), are going to fail.

A lot of media companies seem to think that (1) if they stop piracy, people will pay them for all the content that's being downloaded for free, and (2) the rules they want enacted to stop piracy will have no notable deleterious effects on their own business models.

They keep forgetting that "not-inspected data exchange" includes private emails, and that a desire for encrypted data exchange isn't limited to hackers and pirates.

[6charlong]

Isn’t this whole argument just about the publishing houses struggling to find a viable business model against a perfect storm of digitization, Internet distribution and globalization? They are using copyright to get governments involved, essentially trying to protect their old business model.

The easy thing for government is to throw up their hands and resort to draconian methods to get the whole problem off their plate rather than waiting patiently for a viable, new business model to take hold. Governments do tend to behave this way. They have a lot more to think about than book sales.

I think we are overlooking the fact that a viable business model addressing these problems already exists: it’s Amazon. It may not be the only or even the best model but the longer the traditional publishing houses fail to compete the harder it will be to catch up.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Rizla

It's a question of two parts:

First of all: is digital (and I'm talking e-book) copyright incompatible with technology? Piracy has proved resilient. Can piracy be physically halted? The methods of piracy AFAIK are 1) torrents, 2) download sites and 3) usenet.

Those are just the current methods of "piracy". What it really comes down to is, if two people have a way of exchanging information and a desire to do so, then they'll find a way to do it. The methods are irrelevant.

There's no way anyone is going to be able to prevent people from exchanging information, so trying to go after it from that angle is futile. What they should be doing is worrying less about "stopping piracy" and worry more about making their product more attractive to their potential customers. Better quality, lower price, more convenience... etc.

Instead of wasting time and money on DRM and lawsuits, they should be looking more closely at why people don't want to buy their content.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

"Downloading copyrighted stuff for free" is neither a "right" nor a "freedom"; it's simply a crime.

That's complete nonsense, but I'm sure you knew that already.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Rizla

I see. So it's basically like the old newsgroups.

Usenet IS the old newsgroups.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

There's no way anyone is going to be able to prevent people from exchanging information, so trying to go after it from that angle is futile.

Sure piracy can be prevented. Governments / Corporations are in the process of preventing it right now. No new pirating technology has emerged in response. We are witnessing the end...

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Sure piracy can be prevented. Governments / Corporations are in the process of preventing it right now. No new pirating technology has emerged in response. We are witnessing the end...

Actually, the ultimate book pirating technology is advancing inexorably and at some point in the next ten years will likely render every concievable ebook DRM scheme irrevocably futile.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Actually, the ultimate book pirating technology is advancing inexorably and at some point in the next ten years will likely render every concievable ebook DRM scheme irrevocably futile.

No need to be so mysterious. Spit it out. In any case, DRM is not the issue.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by 6charlong

Isn’t this whole argument just about the publishing houses struggling to find a viable business model against a perfect storm of digitization, Internet distribution and globalization? They are using copyright to get governments involved, essentially trying to protect their old business model.

Piracy is not just something that affects large companies; it's hurting normal people too - software authors, book authors, and musicians. To regard piracy as a victimless crime is just plain wrong.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by Rizla

1) Torrents can be stopped. It is not anonymous. Torrent users are easily identified and open to prosecution.

Both true and not true. True if the torrent user does nothing to disguise his or her tracks, untrue if they do and it's easy peasy to accomplish. If I had a granny left and she could use a PC, she could manage it.

Originally Posted by Rizla

No need to be so mysterious. Spit it out. In any case, DRM is not the issue.

I've no idea what Phogg is referring to specifically, but a number of new file sharing technologies are being developed at this time and at any time. Many, if not most, are being developed with an eye to create more secure transmissions from the file sharers' point of view and to thwart The Man.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

I've no idea what Phogg is referring to specifically, but a number of new file sharing technologies are being developed at this time and at any time. Many, if not most, are being developed with an eye to create more secure transmissions from the file sharers' point of view and to thwart The Man.

"The Man" presumably meaning hard-working people like me, whose livelihood they are destroying?

[Belfaborac]

I think The Man is generally used to refer to the government, the police and suchlike. I've never actually heard it used "live", only in movies, or used it myself, but that's my understanding at least. If I'm wrong I'm sure someone more subversive than me will chime in and correct it.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by HarryT

"The Man" presumably meaning hard-working people like me, whose livelihood they are destroying?

That is the idea, those people only care about themselves. Everything else is just a smoke screen.

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by HarryT

"The Man" presumably meaning hard-working people like me, whose livelihood they are destroying?

Or maybe people like the Chinese government? IIRC, one of the reasons things like TOR was invented was so political dissidents could transfer information and files without being murdered by their own governments.

And yes, while those things can be misused to destroy the livelihood of people who depend on a state-enforced temporary monopoly that's doesn't make them automatically evil.