Court Rules That File-Sharing Service Infringed Copyrights

[riemann42]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

No, a digital good if such a thing exists doesn't need to have only once source. If a publishing contract was non exclusive then publishers would have to complete on price or in some other way on the same books/music/movies. It can work it does work newspapers all of them can pay a fee to use associated press material and then charge whatever they want for their papers. Since anyone who's a member or pays the fee can use it thy have to compete on something other than that content. This would keep any single publisher from holding material hostage for a high price, a monopoly price since someone else could come along and offer the same thing but take less of a per unit profit. The lowest bidder makes the sale because anyone who's willing to pay gets the best price anyone is willing to offer. The copyright holder still gets paid their licensing fee, everyone wins the only thing that goes down is the publisher's profit margin and that was only higher because they had a monopoly on a particular work.

I'd be a free market, if the tea baggers knew how to read they'd be all over this idea.

Ok. I don't get it. I don't see any business reason for this, ethical reason for this, or any way this changes anything (as the artists still sets a fee to charge someone, just hires anonymous agents to sell the book). Taken loosely, you just described the physical book distribution model.

Practically, if you mean that authors work directly with a trade organization that distributes their work, that is silly. The publisher does a heck of a lot more than set type.

However, if you mean this as a way to avoid orphan books, etc., It may be a good idea. I just don't think an Author, Publisher, or Pamphleteer should be forced into this kind of model.

[Iphinome]

I was going to go so far as to suggest statutory licensing and the difference is the publishing is non exclusive. Anyone could publish any book in the way any radio station can play any song. Whoever can do it the cheapest gets the sale or else they must compete on something else like perhaps hardback vs paperback vs ebook, drm vs no drm. Hey bonus, you'd be able to get a paperback the same day the hardcover is released.

As for the people who make limewire being scum? I think we won't agree there, I've violated a few unjust laws in my short life just for the sake of breaking an unjust law. Copyright laws in any country that holds tot he berne convention is unjust.

[EowynCarter]

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.

Do you really believe DRM do anything against piracy ? They only hurts sells by annoying customers.
The only reason I buy DRM book is because I can de-drm easily. Else, I would just not buy the books.
Trachmania 2 is said to have that crappy ubisoft protection requiring internet connexion. If that the case, i will just not buy it, no mater how much I want the game otherwise. One can live without a game.

If you restrict your customer too much, said customer will say "screw you, I don't buy in these conditions".

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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.



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.

People/families will have a fixed entertainment budget. If they are not spending that budget on pirate content they will spend it on something else instead. The point being that they are prepared to pay for their digital content, they just don't want to pay what the content producers are asking for it. The difference in price isn't vast (£3 versus £6-7), so I don't think it is impossible to meet. Especially if you get rid of some of the unnecessary middlemen.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Since so many are harping on about publishers' and authors' "greed". What about consumers' greed? Isn't wanting something for free just as greedy?

They do want to pay, they just don't think it is worth what you are asking for it so they pay for pirate copies instead. Whose fault would you say that is?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

The word right in the context of this discussion does not mean that anyone who wants to make a living from writing should simply be paid to do so. It means that if someone wants to charge for their work and attempt to earn a living that way then they have the right to do that.

Of course. But simply wishing piracy away isn't going to achieve that. People need to live within the environment they are born into, and if that environment changes they need to adapt to those changes.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

And the cost of creating, of marketing? In the end, not wanting to pay for other people's efforts is greed.

Yes.



.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by riemann42

5) Corollary to (1): The law and the implementation of the law should strive to recognize (1), while still acknowledging fair use and legitimate rights of consumers, such as anti-trust concerns with format, etc. In other words, an Author is within her rights to use Penguin books as a distributor, and allow them to charge $1,000,000 a copy of each book, but is not within her rights to require that the reader read the book using reading glasses sold by the Author's Husband, which offer no advantage over other glasses except the license to read said author's work. In much shorter terms, you have the right to charge be $12, but not to say I have to read it on a Kindle.


So am I a commie? Is being a commie so bad anymore after the capitalist demonstrated what lying, cheating, and stealing in the name of shareholder value gets us?

Actually, the only thing I'd challenge here is point 5: Of course an author/publisher has the right to tell you you must buy their book at their price, read it on their device, wear their specialty glasses and stand on your head while you read it. It's their product, so they can dictate the terms of sale.

They have this right, specifically because of rule 2: The consumer can decide not to consume. And you might want to add one more rule to your list:

6. Everything is negotiable.

[EowynCarter]

The consumer can decide not to consume

Exactly.
And I decided not to consume anything with DRM.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

As for the people who make limewire being scum? I think we won't agree there, I've violated a few unjust laws in my short life just for the sake of breaking an unjust law. Copyright laws in any country that holds tot he berne convention is unjust.

Why? Because it prevents you from taking someone else's work without paying for it, and denying the creator a chance at an honest income?

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

Do you really believe DRM do anything against piracy ? They only hurts sells by annoying customers.

I've said before that DRM in its current form is ineffective because you need more than just DRM to do the job. Piracy can be controlled effectively, if we want it to be done. Problem is, most people are too afraid document security will turn the world into a police state, and the next day we'll all be put in front of a firing squad without trial for littering.

If security was all that was needed to accomplish that, the keys to your car, the cable box on your TV and the number on your driver's license would have done us all in a long time ago. Get over the whole Big Brother thing already.

Is DRM annoying? Maybe. So are closed stores when you want to shop at 3AM. Doesn't mean you have a God-given right to break a window and take what you want. Some things in life are annoying. Get used to it.

[EowynCarter]

Doesn't mean you have a God-given right to break a window and take what you want

Perfectly true.
But I have the right to say "The product don't satisfy me because of drm, I'll live without it."
Food is vital, having a roof on your head is vital. Music, books, movies, are not.
For music, i didn't bought anything online while they had DRM. Got a few CD instead (and eventually bought less music, as prices discouraged me more often than not).
And well, if the "tanks" you get for buying a product is DRM...

Piracy can be controlled effectively, if we want it to be done.

How ? There is only one way, make sure the legal offer have more to offer than the illegal one.

[Dusty Bottoms]

"Here we go round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush. Here we go round the mulberry bush...all on a Saturday morning."



Image taken from the newly hosted Pirate Bay main page

And as the old (in internet time) quote goes "You can't take something off the Internet - it's like taking pee out of a pool."

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms

And as the old (in internet time) quote goes "You can't take something off the Internet - it's like taking pee out of a pool."

I'm sure that comforts the boys at Limewire.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

The consumer can decide not to consume

Unfortunately for you, they have decided to consume without paying instead. The real questions would be how many of them would have paid instead if it was within their perceived value price range, and how many would have paid full price if they didn't need to stand on their head to read it? If the answers to both are a substantial number of them, it would be within your power to do something about it. If the answers are not many, you will need to find ways of making money from free content.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

And the cost of creating, of marketing? In the end, not wanting to pay for other people's efforts is greed.

Do you know that when you say fringe nutty things like this you alienate quite a few moderates? You make it impossible for us to be on your side.

Is your goal to win people over to your viewpoint, or is it your goal to annoy everyone?