OK, what do people think of intellectual property laws/enforcement in the world right now? the US treats it stupidly, IMO, but I don't know about other countries.

I think IP has gotten out of hand. It's essentially supposed to prevent other people from stealing your idea and competing with you. But the effect it seems to have now is to let IP-holders fence their stuff off and, in some respect, get paid for the fact that they have an IP rather than what the IP is.

Example: I heard a song by an indie artist and liked it, so I looked for a torrent of all his songs. But I couldn't find one, so I bought the album online instead. The album mostly sucked. So he got my money for nothing, just because he had an IP, not because the IP was worth the money I paid for it.

I think consumers can understand that artists need revenue to survive, and if they want to hear/see more from an artist/studio, they need to support them somehow. I think consumers also don't like the idea of the profit from a CD going mainly to record execs and people that had nothing to do with actually making the music.

It's just silly. In order to hear some music -- so I know if it's worth buying -- I need to buy it or pirate it, and in the latter case they can sue me and get 1000x the real value anyways.

Brazilian artists release the album directly to the street vendors to make and sell copies, and they never see a dime from it. The CDs are just promotion for live shows.

Nigeria has a huge film business, but they don't have a copyright law!

Outdated, outmoded, enforced far too draconially, abused far beyond even its original intent and in ways highly detrimental to society, increasingly controlled by a corporate lobby not acting in the best interest of society as a whole, and in desperate need of reform.

Also, the DMCA bans circumvention of DRM, so corporations can basically make their own rules, write DRM that (maybe) protects them, and then have them enforced by the federal gvmt.

The current model could use some revision, but it doesn't excuse piracy.

The term "piracy" implies a moral equivalence between unauthorized copying and attacking ships. Is that appropriate?

<quote name="Copyright Infringement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia#The term "piracy"">
The practice of labeling the act of infringement as "piracy" actually predates copyright itself. Even prior to the 1709 enactment of the Statute of Anne, generally recognized as the first copyright law, the Stationers' Company of London in 1557 received a Royal Charter giving the company a monopoly on publication and tasking it with enforcing the charter. Those who violated the charter were labeled pirates as early as 1603.

For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is occasionally referred to as piracy or theft (an early reference was made by Alfred Tennyson in the preface to his poem "The Lover's Tale" in 1879 where he mentions that sections of this work "have of late been mercilessly pirated").

The legal basis for this usage dates from the same era, and has been consistently applied until the present time. Critics of the use of the term "piracy" to describe such practices contend that it unfairly equates copyright infringement with more sinister activity, though courts often hold that under law the two terms are interchangeable.
</quote>
- Source.

The term has a significant basis, but by using the term commonly (we assume that the majority of people are ignorant of the basis of the term), it still implies an equivalence.

Well, it may be wrong to imply the two are equivalent, but it does make them both sound equally cool
Do you think Ninja'ing (in MMORPGs) is popular only because it profits the Ninja? Don't you think it has something to do with how cool being a Ninja seems?

Don't know what that means. And "piracy" may sound cool when you say it, but when the term is used consistently in Senate hearings and etc, it biases lawmakers toward stronger copyright laws.

Especially heinous is the way that certain lobbyists like to imply that filesharing is somehow linked to real, serious organized crime such as drug trade, human trafficking, arms smuggling, etc.

Now, doubtless there are organized crime groups that deal in commercial software piracy and use it to fund other operations. This is especially common in the second world. But to imply that that's in any way typical, especially in the western world, is ludicrous, misleading, and nefarious. Most people are ordinary people sharing files with friends over peer-to-peer services and are just as appalled by organized crime as you and I. The link is frivolous, and it's extremely dishonest of lobbyists to try to make this link.

The sad part is people may be buying it.

Substitute friends with complete strangers and I agree.

Piracy is wrong but I dont think you should go to jail unless you are a reseller of the property. If a guy downloads 5.2 million songs how many can he really use. If this same guy starts selling these songs at school then we have a problem.

Without IP many ideas will die on the vine.

I think that any conceivable benefits from IP in terms of more creative ideas are vastly overshadowed by the harm in terms of less creative ideas (that is, inability to create derivative works, etc).

Could you cite your sources? I've never heard of that before... Moreso, you're acting like the lawmakers are mindless drones. They're people like you and me (most of them) and they understand the difference between piracy and especially heinous crimes.

IP is the foundation of a number of industries. If you make it permitted to openly copy and distribute it at no cost then these industries disappear and so do the products. AFAIK, typical piracy will only result in large fines if you are caught -- no jail time that I've heard of.

Then why is it called "piracy"? Just because it's cool? I doubt that...

Sure. It doesn't change my argument.

Absolutely. One of the earliest sources is a 2003 report shown to the House where Department of Justice attorney general John G. Malcolm testified about "organized crime groups called warez groups", and MPAA president Jack Valenti claimed links between 9/11 and file sharing:

He also said the following:

As well as this:

And remember, this isn't some small fry. This is the president of the Motion Picture Association of America. Testifying before Congress. Here is an article about the event.

More recently, just last year the IFPI accused filesharers of funding terrorism:

Again, this is an official lobbying organization pretty much outright accusing filesharers of supporting terrorism, a highly politically charged and nefarious thing to say these days. Yes, I know, technically what they're saying right there is true; but the way it's being put forward, especially as part of that list there, is painting a very ugly and deliberately misleading picture of what's actually going on. Muddling the lines in order to make it seem like everyone who downloads stuff on the Internet is tacitly supporting murderous criminals is exactly what they want to achieve.

The whole idea is to try to get people to stop thinking of copyrighted work as belonging to the public, which was the original intention of copyright according to the Constitution and precedent, and start thinking of it as belonging to the copyright owners. The idea of data ownership is preposterous, as copies can easily be made. This is why I will now stop using the term "intellectual property", because it predisposes the debate in favor of the idea that you can "own" data.

No one is saying get rid of IP. They are however saying the current rules MAKE NO SENSE.

Yes, in 1603 they thought that the word "piracy" was "cool". Pirating (stealing) intellectual property is related to stealing tangible property... It makes sense to call it pirating, IMO...

You seemed to quote things out of thin air... Links would be nice...

How do you know none of them are?

Thankfully you can read minds and won't be fooled.

What!?

- Source

Fixed.

That was the true intent. corporate lobbyists however have changed the meaning through insane changes to the law.

Arr, I be a pirate, would ye like to join my crew? and come sailing on my illegal-unauthorized-Copyright-infringement vessel.

On a more sensible note.

An example to back Thomas...

The Walt Disney Company (TWDC) pushed hard for the Copyright Term Extension Act., Copyright is designed to protect the author, Disney died a long time ago, and the early Mickey Mouse cartoons were going to lose their Copyright. (Mickey still would be a trademark, so people still wouldn't be able to use his likeness.) TWDC didn't want this to happen, so they changed laws just to protect their own financial interests. It doesn't really matter much to Disney if the works become public domain or not, he isn't here to benefit. TWDC just want to protect their wallets.

Source text, being the testimony of Jack Valenti.

Actually, that is incorrect. Copyright was established by the Statute of Anne, and was, from day one, intended to protect the distributors of works. It's a common misconception that copyright is intended to protect the creator of the work, but it isn't and it never has been.

Append: Also, heh, I was attending a talk by RMS the other week, where someone asked what his thoughts on piracy were, and he said "Well, I think attacking ships is awful."

You are correct, the original original intent was to protect the publisher, as at one time, publishing a book was very costly. Without any kind of protection, publishers would have no incentive.

It was meant to provide limited incentive to create.

Don't forget, publishing was also a "pirate" medium once. Information used to be locked up for only the elite to access, and the printing press made it available to everyone (who could read).

The original copyright laws came about in the age of the printing press, when it was feasible to distribute large amounts of information, but only for publishers (who could afford printing presses and operation costs). It was designed to prevent other publishers from stealing work from authors and publishers who already had an agreement. Copyright, as it was originally intended, applied only to corporations. Quoting an article I found on the Web, "Telling [consumers] they weren't allowed to reprint a book was about as meaningful as telling them they couldn't have it laser-etched on the surface of the Moon." It was the new technology of first, the photocopier, and then computers and the Internet that allowed people to copy things large-scale, and copyright laws were changed by corporations to apply more to people, and also to apply to free distribution as well as resale for profit.

I can't find it now, but Sony (?) says it's "piracy" to rip tracks from CD's you purchased in a store to save on your hard disk. I do this myself for the convenience of not having to find the cd and swap it into the drive.

People with all the money effectively make the laws because they can afford the shysters lawyers, and make bribes political contributions.

Technically, it is. With a copy on your hard disk the music can now be listened to in two different locations. That is illegal, the same way it is illegal to install a single PC licensed version of Windows or Office on more than one PC. I don't think the distributors would have a problem with you ripping the music to the hard drive to listen to more conveniently, but there's no guarantee that you won't be sharing it (i.e. if you have the music on my computer you could theoretically give the CD away or sell it and still have the music, robbing the music industry of a potential sale).

If you can't accept what I said above as a valid argument then there's no point debating piracy with you. If people are free to copy and distribute IP then that will take away from the industries based on IP and the industries will not be able to sustain themselves. Since you can't guarantee that the CD and hdd copy will never be simultaneously used or perhaps shared or resold in some way then they can't permit people to make copies of the IP. They probably won't go after you for simply making a copy onto your PC for convenience, but if you're sharing that copy with anybody or distributing copies then it's piracy and it is wrong. Period.

I rip all of my CDs to my hard drive as well as my iPod, but I don't share them with anybody else. I'm the only one that uses them.

I very much doubt that the million-dollar music industry will be crippled by a few people sharing songs. And the whole point of my argument is that it is inappropriate to use copyright laws (that seems to be the point under issue, as neither trademark nor patent fit the discussion) whose original point was to prevent other publishers from publishing work already being published by another publisher to jump on consumers. Even assuming the legitimacy of current copyright laws, companies are using them plain immorally. For instance, a person who wrote a less-buggy search engine for people's public folders on a LAN was sued for piracy because some people put allegedly pirated content in their public folders. A site that hosted links to TV shows online was taken down and its proprietor arrested. The RIAA and MPAA etc. are making copyright into a tool to completely control the use of content that they don't even write, inconceivably far outside the original or reasonable boundaries of intellectual property, and people who blame the issue on "pirates" are aiding and abetting them.

I doubt that happened, but if it did it would be an easy case to defend. Obviously "writing a search engine for public folders" isn't in itself a crime (although depending on the platform, etc., perhaps there was reverse engineering happening or something... I don't know). IMO, the crime was placing those IP files in the shared folder [and copying those files from the shared folder]. I think that the companies that produce and distribute IP are still very new to the new ways that people can pirate the IP so they're making mistakes trying to prosecute offenders. That doesn't excuse piracy. It doesn't.

I agree with this one. If the site was intended to provide links to pirated IP then I would say they were involved in the piracy (they were assisting in the distribution of the pirated IP). If the site was just a generic site where users were posting links to pirated IP then I would say deleting the posts and perhaps punishing the users would suffice.

If you can be punished for linking to pirated content, then the entire Web is illegal. If a person is not hosting pirated content, then it completely inappropriate to punish them for it.

Waiting for the cops to shutdown Allegro.cc

There's a difference between a user posting a link to pirated IP on a site and a site being created for the purpose of linking to pirated IP. In the first instance, the administrators or moderators might be asked to remove the link and perhaps the user might be tracked down -- the crime committed, if any, was the user posting the link (and the user might not have realized that the IP was pirated; a slap on the wrists at most, unless the user has shown intent to distribute pirated works in which case I'd support more severe punishment). In the second instance, the entire site should be taken down for intentionally assisting in the distribution of pirated IP. The owners/administrators/moderators could all be tracked down and punished and perhaps even the users of the site. Anybody that was willingly assisting in the distribution of pirated IP is guilty IMO. Again, for some users a slap on the wrist would suffice, but for other more involved users and for the owners/administrators/moderators they really have no excuse for doing what they do.

I'm curious what you do for a living. I might be able to put things into terms you'd understand.

/indirectly-related
Something to consider when thinking about morals on the Internet.

It's actually in most EULAs that you are allowed to make a copy for archival purposes. However, this is also in violation of the DMCA, which says that any digital retransmission of any signal that is copyrighted is illegal.

But anyways, bamccaig, this thread is about the validity of IP law as a whole, not petty stuff like whether you should be allowed to have a backup copy of something.

The only justification I've seen from you besides "it is illegal" and "piracy is wrong" is "If people are free to copy and distribute IP then that will take away from the industries based on IP and the industries will not be able to sustain themselves."

You're correct that the industries based on IP will not be able to sustain themselves, but who gives a flying fuck about them? They're just going to use the money to sue people. It's the people who produce the IP we should care about, since what we're led to believe is that IP is about protecting the creator.

If you meant your quote to extend to the creators, too, then here are 4 reasons you're wrong.

Nigeria: Huge film business, pioneered direct to DVD as first line of release, no copyright law.

Brazil: Huge remix culture, producers remix existing songs (and make original songs, too) and give them (as in, for free) to street vendors, who copy and sell them. The producers don't see a penny of it. The CDs are just promotion for live shows.

Radiohead: Ditched label, sold album as "pay whatever you want" on website. No official numbers, but the unofficial numbers say 40% paid, paying $6 on average worldwide, $8 in the US. They would see about $2 from a CD sale while signed with a label.

And it's not like the freeloaders were a lost cause, either. Some of them probably wouldn't have bought the album anyways, or perhaps had never listened to Radiohead. Some of them also might've been like me and waited to spend money on the physical release.

NIN: Released a compilation called Ghosts for free, under Creative Commons, made 1.6 million dollars in a week from donations. That would not happen under a label.

Why? Even if not posting unauthorized IP, people are guilty for linking to it? So will people next be guilty for telling people about it? Assume that the person expresses the wish that more people go to the site and download it. The idea of outlawing links to unauthorized copyrighted material goes dangerously far down a road that leads to 1984. Anyway, the First Amendment explicitly protects people who simply link to material, as linking is simply a technological way of telling people the URL.

Slight error, its anything that is copyprotected as in theres some form of technological lock in place, which would need circumvented. Like DRM.

Firstly, those look like examples of artists that have been financially rewarded for free offerings; not reasons why artists can survive without restricting the copying of their IP.

Secondly, there is a slight problem with the figures other artists have seen through donations, IMO. It's a new strategy being taste tested; allowing consumers to have the product for free and donate. Undoubtedly, a fair piece of those donations were from pirates that are trying to promote the idea. Do you honestly believe that people will be so generous when everything is free? The answer is simply no. If people don't have to pay they probably won't. Consider Yves; he claims that he can afford to pay for IP, but chooses to pirate instead (including stuff he says he really likes, IIRC). There's also the issue of the location where people are getting the IP from. Sure, if you're downloading it from the official Web site with donate here sections then it's a little bit more convenient and effortless to donate. However, if the consumers are getting the IP through file sharing or some other means of distribution the donation interface is lost. Some of the major fans might find their way to the site to contribute, but the majority of consumers won't care enough to.

Fuck free, I just want "not exorbently expensive". $15-25 for a stinking CD with maybe one good song on it? I think not. Give it to me for $5 or less and I'll be happy to buy more than one. Or let me by tracks in singles, with no DRM (kthx), and I'l buy many.

As it is, I'm happy to take advandage of Canadas music media levy.

And besides that latest exparement made most of its money from upselling the Special Edition Box set. Most people downloaded the free samples, many people bought one or more of the other albums, and several thousand (I think) bought the box set for something like $300 a pop.

I've only made a few bad CD purchases because I take my time before buying them and thus far have been mostly satisfied paying anywhere from $9-25+. I agree, $18 is a lot to pay for a single song and that's why I generally go without until I'm confident that the album is worth the purchase. However, there are online stores that offer DRM-free songs so that's not a very good excuse.

I think it is possible for a creator to make a living on non-copy-protected content. I think it is ridiculous for you to say that people would make especial payments for something just to promote the idea that it is possible to.

Sure, NOW. Does Yahoo or who ever take Paypal? I've ordered some music from Magnatune, great quality stuff.

http://www.stallman.org/extra/bdk.html

'Nuff said!

I love that whole site.

WHat if i have an m4p file that i want to make an mp3, but the software is 100 dollars? is it wrong to get the song of FrostWire? I already paid for it.

Try ffmpeg or pacpl. In both the cases of converting and fetching another copy of the song, the quality and license of the original song would have an effect on the legal and ethical status of both activities though. Perhaps you paid for a low quality copy of the song, but fetch a higher quality version for free. Or perhaps the cost for the song was reduced because of the closed format, with the intent of limiting it's use. I'd say there are a lot of variables to consider.

That of course assumes the licence is legal and enforceable. And you can't assume either till its been tested.

If someone is dumb enough, in a world in which "hackers" in the original sense are largely libertarian in the sense of not liking overmuch authority, to try to enforce their own draconian use restrictions with technology, that's their lookout. Which, incidentally, is why I hate the DMCA, because it criminalizes circumventing DRM, and thus allows providers to basically write and have enforced by the federal gvmt. their own copyright law.

AFAIK, if you write a piece of software you can license that software anyway you want. If people want to use the software they must agree to the terms of use. Why should music be any different?

Those licences haven't been tested fully. so no no one truly knows if they are legally binding. And the shrink wrap licences are almost deffinitely not legally binding. In fact, in some states are are invalid. And for good reason. how can you be bound to a licence you can't read till you agree to the licence by opening the package?

Thats the kind of stupid crap most licences have in them.

Why should software be the way it is?

Why shouldn't the author own explicit rights to his own work?

"Intellectual property" is a contradiction in terms. I accept copyright as it was originally intended as an incentive to create more creative work, but as it is now it is unconscionable. I see no reason why we should have to check our every action that is anything to do with songs or software with the draconian EULAs that they force on us.

To what end?

No, it's not. Perhaps as somebody that doesn't own any you don't understand the need to have it protected.

As I think was already mentioned, copyright was originally intended to protect distributors from rival distributors. This was during a time where consumers couldn't practically copy IP so it wasn't a consideration. As photocopiers and tape players became available the laws were extended to prevent consumers from making copies as well. It is just as illegal to photocopy an entire book as it is to duplicate an entire song.

AFAIK, copyright was never intended to encourage more creative works.

Whatever end he wishes. It was the result of the author's investment. Why should anybody have the right to take it away from them? Expecting IP to be free sounds communistic to me...

that was the effect, that wasn't the intent.

So now you have to agree to it before you've read it, and it could say ANYTHING.

Personally, when I buy a peice of software, I own a copy. what gives them the right to say its just a lease?

That is obviously untrue. Either the agreement should be made available beforehand or means for return/refund should be enforced if the consumer doesn't agree to the terms of use.

Not according to your logic.

edit:
Oh and not to mention the standard clause that states they can change the licence at any time without notice.

At what point did I ever say you had to agree to terms without reading them?

I have written this paragraph. It is automatically under my copyright. By copying it to your computer (including by cache, memory or disk), you are bound by its terms. You agree to send me $1,000,000,000 within one day. If you do not agree to these terms, do not copy this work to your system.

Thats your logic.

It requires a little bit of common sense to follow. If you're going to be stupid about it, you might as well STFU.

By posting anything on the Web you have already permitted anybody with direct access to it to have a copy stored on their system, at the very least.

If that was your answer to my question it has nothing to do with forcing a user to agree to terms of use without reading them.

It amounts to the same thing.

Sure it does, since the author/artist/whatever can do what ever he wants!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/26/apple_safari_eula_paradox/ is also a funny read.

I never said the author can do whatever he wants, period.

The author should have control over the use of his own material, but it would obviously need to be something the consumer/user could agree to beforehand.

No, it's not. Perhaps as somebody that doesn't own any you don't understand the need to have it protected.
</quote>
I actually do own IP, and when it's actually finished and available I have no qualms about making it public domain. The "your opinions are invalid because you have no experience" tack isn't going to cut it here.

It's not really the same thing if you don't rely on that IP to make a living or don't think highly enough of the IP to demand that it's origins remain intact. If it's just hobbyist software you're writing or perhaps hobbyist music or video or whatever, that's not really applicable because you're probably already permitting people to use it freely.

Personally I think its absolute bull shit to do things such as the content industry does now. Making it illegal to record a football game to vhs? Or watch with a really big tv? Totall bull shit.

If they only pulled their heads out of thier asses for a moment, theyd realize they aren't selling and marketing to pirates. They are infact trying to sell to the Masses, who will all happily pay for things that they want. The types of protections put in place on media and software (like games), are to protect against people who they aren't even trying to sell to! How in the world does that make sense? In the end those protections only make it harder and more complicated for thier target audience to use.

Do you really think its fair to pay for a DVD, only to have to pay again to watch it the next day? And pay again to watch it on your PSP? And then to make a backup copy so you don't have to buy the media again, just so you can pay to watch it again?

If they don't contribute, there won't be any more music. Free market. You determine what succeeds by what you choose to fund. Of course there's going to be a transition period, but there has been for anything like this.

Yaknow, this isn't a new problem we're facing. It's the same problem we saw with the printing press, cable box, and VCR.

Forget whether it's fair, moral, legal, or whatever high-ground argument you want to use. The simple fact is that it isn't working. Consumers evolve, producers evolve. If they don't, they die out.

I've never heard of this before... Do enlighten me.

Do you pay everyday for your DVDs? I think you're being scammed...

Actually, the protections put in place on media and software are to protect against the people they are trying to sell to; by preventing them from pirating it you force them to buy the product or go without. You also enforce in the minds of ethical people that it's not OK to just pirate the product who would otherwise feel free to do so. At the very least, you make it more trouble to pirate than it would have been without the protection. It usually interferes with legal consumers when things go wrong or are overlooked (as a software developer you should know that this kind of thing happens) or when consumers assume rights that aren't actually permitted.

It remains illegal to make copies of books and movies... I don't really see where the cable box comes into play, but then I don't really know what it is you're referring to...

Not yet. But IIRC its in the BD+/BluRay spec pay per play! And time limited media.

Sorry. I don't buy it. Its just too much trouble for most people to bother with attempting to copy crap. They'd rather pay for it, and have it "just work", than play around with pirating it and have it "maybe" work. The people that actually do pirate stuff, will go to rather extreme ends to copy something. Buying specialist hardware (Macrovision anyone?), duplicating VHS decks, DVD duplicators, etc. Try getting my dad to download and burn a DVD iso off the internet and see if you have the patience Most consumers are like that. They buy something they want, and WANT it to just work. ThThat'st. The few people willing to pirate stuff can't be stopped short of killing them all.

Originally, it was only for a relatively short period of time. 10 years or less. These days, since Disney Corp. bribed a few senators, its seemingly indefinite (they keep getting the time limit extended).

Every time there's been a technological innovation, the incumbent industry has always cried out "No! That is piracy, and it will destroy us!"

Which is kinda sad when you realize that the illegal ISO downloads are more user-friendlier than the bought media (people will actually download an ISO of a game they bought just so they don't have to deal with the crap on the disc). Why do I need the damn disc in the drive when I start a game that doesn't need to use the disc?

If a product is good enough, people will pay for it. Even if they illegally download a game, play it and decide they like it, then either send a sizable donation or buy a copy to leave shelved.

Well, in that case, those gamers are somewhat tech literate.. If we talk "most people" here, even going and trying to download the iso would make my dad give up. Especially if its some p2p program.. and then trying to figure out a burning program so he can watch whatever he downloaded on his DVD player? Not going to happen. He'd much rather spend the 10-20$ for the disk at Wall Mart or where ever, than spend the time to figure out some stupid software to get it free.

edit:

I've personally pirated many things since I started using computers. It started with a copy of Win98. No joke. I will however pay for things I WANT. I pay for a subscription to lwn.net, I pay for the occasional movie, some music from magnatune, but generally not for things that assume I'm a dirty stinking pirate. I won't support the big conglomarate money grab.

You know where the recent ditch of DRM in the music industry started? With RMI. Just after a venture capitalist purchaced them outright and took them private to get them solvent again. Someone with some actual business sense realized people don't want what they were being offered.

Depends on how its set up. It's easy to set up something like Alcohol 120% or something to right-click an ISO to mount it to a virtual drive and auto-run it. No burning or anything, and no mucking around with discs..

Come talk to my dad about installing Alcohol most pure computer "users" are the same.

Sharing is caring my friends. Nuff' said. Now go seed some serious shit! I know you want to!

Nah, I haven't found a good, easy to setup torrent client for my Ubuntu yet

Ktorrent. Try and get the latest kde 3 version, the ubuntu version might be new enough, not sure. But svn is almost always better. And kde4's should rock harder.

edit: the neat thing about kde4's ktorrent is they split it apart into a few different libs, now KDE's KGet application uses libktcore/libbtcore to manage torrent downloads in a much slimmer interface for people that dont need or want a full bt client.

I was referring specifically to the cable box part. I understood what you were getting at. I think it's plausible that it does have the potential to destroy them and for that reason there are restrictions put in place to either deter the abuse or at least give the industry time to adjust.

It's one of the ways software developers (that's us) came up with trying to prevent or deter piracy. While I agree that it's a nuisance, I also understand why it was done and blame pirates for it. It's not the only solution in place. For example, VALVe's Steam client is very convenient and AFAIK as effective or better.
[quote ]If a product is good enough, people will pay for it. Even if they illegally download a game, play it and decide they like it, then either send a sizable donation or buy a copy to leave shelved.
</quote>
Is that right? I don't know if he means it or not, but the sad truth is that not everybody is moral.

If my dad had to pay a dime for every swear he said, simply browsing a single Web site would get very expensive... And by comparison to some, he's actually pretty good with computers considering his demographic.

The part everyone seems to miss is that this DRM and "piracy deterrent" only affects legitimate users.

bamccaig: I'm going to put this as simply as possible. It doesn't work. It. Doesn't. Work.

You have two options: DRM the hell out of everything and sue everyone who avoids it, or embrace it and make it work for you.

There's proof that the former doesn't stop pirates and it annoys actual customers.

There's also proof that the latter can be achieved.

(Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_in_the_United_States)

I'm going to put this as simply as possible: it's probably impossible to actually stop all IP piracy, but that doesn't mean it's pointless. It does work and it does serve a purpose. Defending that it shouldn't be done because it isn't 100% effective is the same as saying that encryption or password protection are pointless because they don't provide complete security. It doesn't work 100% of the time and probably never can. And again, if the DRM gets in the way of legitimate users then either the legitimate user is assuming they are permitted to do something they aren't or the developers overlooked something.

As for the link you gave me, it's way too late to skim through an article that long trying to piece together what you meant. Summarize, link to the particular section, or provide a paragraph number.

And we all know how developers are infallible.

I was browsing the Wikipedia article on StarForce to give you an example for one copy protection that messes the user's computer up, and was surprised to find that
1) "Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory held 422 days before being cracked (a process which also allowed the game to run on 64-bit processors unsupported by its version of StarForce)." - apparently pirates get a better functioning game.
2) "StarForce 3.0 (until August 2006) creates a security problem when installed on a limited-access user account" - and that paying customers had a security hole installed with their games. (You can read more about the specifics on the wiki page)

Not to mention other various bonuses pirates get compared to paying customers.

I can see that you blame pirates for that, but do you really think you (and other paying customers) should be getting a slap in the face because someone else pirated a game? Especially considering the pirates enjoy slap-free cheeks? And how every protection is foiled eventually?

Related, I think:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/08/03/29/046201.shtml

Password protection doesn't lose customers, interfere with your use of the product, and open up your system to security vulnerabilities.

As for cable: Areas that couldn't get TV broadcasts very well set up one giant antenna that redistributed the broadcast to the community on cables. TV networks said it was piracy, bitched and moaned, and eventually embraced it and it became what it is today.

Recommended viewing:

Good Copy Bad Copy
Steal This Film Part 1
Steal This Film Part 2

I read in some page somewhere that Napster (music sharing service, shut down by court order for copyright infringement) told the district court that shut it down that it could block 99.4% of illegal transfers; circuit court said they had to get it "down to zero". More or less quoting from the same source, it is impossible to make sure that all p2p technology is used legally, any more than it is possible for all handguns to be used legally. The court shut Napster down even though it was clearly attempting in good faith to stop "pirate" transfers. How is that not a war on p2p in general? We don't ban VCRs altogether just because they can be used for piracy; we shouldn't with p2p either.

Even if you aren't making this up talk is cheap. How did Napster intend to block illegal downloads? That would require DRM-like software which would put them on the other side of your fight. Moreso, how could Napster prove that they were in fact blocking that percentile of illegal downloads?

There is nothing wrong with legal p2p... It's the illegal stuff that floods the networks that makes it a problem. Honestly, how much of the p2p traffic do you think is legal? I'd guess 1%. If Napster did manage to block 99.4% of the illegal traffic the network would have died anyway and the next would take its place.

How can a knife manufacturer prove that they were in fact stopping murders that used knives?

There is nothing wrong with legal knife usage. Its the illegal usage that floods the world that makes it a problem. Honestly, how much knife usage do you think is legal? I'd guess 1%. If the manufacturer did manage to block 99.4% of all murders with knifes the knife usage would have died anyway and the next would take its place.

OK so its not exactly like that. But Napster was a TOOL. It could be used for both pirating and not. You cant ban a tool... You can punish the people. But not the tool.

bamccaig, I can't help but think you want guns banned.

I guarantee if the vast majority of knives were used to stab people hundreds of times per day they would be outlawed. In reality, they aren't. They have a number of legal uses and the illegal uses are relatively rare.

You can if the tool was designed for illegal uses. There are knives that are illegal because they serve no practical and legal use. I guarantee if a p2p network played nice with the IP industry they would face absolutely no static. The problem is that they don't because they can't because the whole damn network is used for piracy. The only exception is the open source projects that release their files on p2p networks, mostly through BitTorrent.

Then you haven't been paying enough attention.

Prove to me that Napster was designed for illegal use. Was there code inside to find extra expensive and rare music specifically? What kind of proof do you have that it was designed for pirating?

Napster wasn't designed for pirating anymore then Azureus, eMule, etc. are designed for pirating.

They are used mostly in an illegal way. Why not ban them?

Napster was designed for pirating originally - they let you download other people's music for free - which is theft of intellectual property if done without permission. Now that they pay royalties and charge a modest fee per song to pay for it they are legal.

OK, if it was designed for that back then, OK. Thats the past. Azureus, eMule, Shareazaa, etc. were not designed for pirating. Just like Firefox was not designed for hacking websites. Yet some people do it. Its the people that drive piracy, not programs.

Well p2p networks and clients have learned to separate themselves from piracy with a disclaimer or similar, basically discouraging piracy on their networks and masking themselves with a legal front, but that doesn't change what the networks are predominantly used for.

- Source

Other interesting reading...

• eDonkey Client RIAA Agreement

• Legal Issues With BitTorrent

Personally, I think p2p has great potential and is a great technology, but that doesn't change the fact that it is predominantly used for illegal purposes and doesn't actually have a lot of legal use at the moment. I also don't find it particularly safe to be sharing files between "anonymous" users. I prefer to go straight to the source whenever possible.

Thank you for quoting that. It does nothing more then say what I already said just in a longer, more complicated, way.

I don't really care what the RIAA/MPAA say. If they made an agreement with eDonkey that means nothing. It just means they have money and an army of lawyers and technically they could make anything illegal.

I quoted it for two reasons. Firstly, to show that even p2p network client developers recognize that the tools they develop are often used illegally. Secondly, as a demonstration of how p2p clients distance themselves from piracy. At the very least, they no longer publicly condone piracy, which is a start. It sounds like eMule even provides a service to check if a particular file is legal or not, but I'll believe it when I see it...

Yes they were. The authors can pretend that it's not their purpose but that is what they were made for.

Both of those programs were made to run on top of existing networks which are 99.99999999999999999% used for piracy. Why wouldn't they try to support a new protocol if that's not their purpose? They intentional chose networks that were extremely popular with piracy for a reason.

Azuerues also runs on an existing protocol, but 1 or 2 people occasionally download linux iso's with it so I won't argue with that one. (Don't try to tell me you use eMule to download linux isos).

Fixed.

Very different. Of course they aren't going to tell you to download stuff illegally, I doubt they have time or money to put up with any legal issues that would cause.

Prove it.

That has to be one of the lamest fixes I've seen.

Yeah, I'm no English major, but I don't actually think there is any difference in meaning...

People seem to think that tools commonly used for illicit sharing (which is the most odd phrase I've ever heard--our parents tell us over and over again "share", and then as soon as we start doing it with data, the most imminently share-able thing ever invented, we get prosecuted for it) are thus only usable for illicit sharing. Napster, etc etc, are FILE SHARING services. They are functionally equivalent to emailing files to each other. What is the problem exactly?

Some of these file sharers are designed to transfer legally shareable files, while others are not. Such thngs as napster are obviosly not, as they do not try to hide themselves. LimeWire on the otherhand, is effectively untraceable, and so was obviosly designed for pirating music.

Your parents told you to share so they wouldn't hear as much whining. When people tell you to "share" when you're a grown-up, usually they want YOUR stuff without paying. The Open Source people want people to "share" their creations so they get bragging rights.

You're also forgetting that when something is banned, something new takes it's place, or people will evade the ban.

That seems to be your mantra, but you can't really argue with that kind of logic. A statement has been said and somewhat backed up, now the burden of disproof is on you.

Umm what? Limewire is a HELL of a lot more traceable than other stuff like bittorrent.

Besides, file sharing is misleading and more accurately referred to as file copying.

The idea of seeking payment from Napster or BitTorrent trackers or anything because they were used for illegal file sharing is about as stupid as suing the manufacturer of a gun for damages because the gun was used to kill someone.

See, and I am very sad that your attitude would actually work in front of a court. You have no proof whatsoever about the intentions of the developers and yet you claim the programs were made for pirating... Oh well.

The gun analogy is perfect.

For example, we all know what guns were made for. For killing. Nothing else. Sure you could argue they were made for sports. But thats no more valid then it is for file sharing programs. They could have been made for pirating... Or they could not. Ban guns, keep guns? What to do?

A better analogy is like the manager of a store looking the other way when his friends steal from it. He knows what they're doing and by allowing it , he is supporting it. The proper response is : "Put it back jacka$$." These file sharing companies can explain it away with all the disclaimers and responsibility shifting statements that they want but the fact is they know their service is being used as a highway for intellectual property theft and they don't really care nor do they attempt to prevent it unless faced with lawsuits.

If the people who made the music / source code / whatever want it to be freely available to the public they will make it available. When consumers go to get the stuff from an alternative source that isn't endorsed to be sharing it, that's theft. It couldn't be any simpler.

Actually, that's an awful analogy. It's more like a museum guard not stopping you from taking photographs of the paintings.

There is a major difference. Guns are necessary for a lot of things. If a large man comes at you with his bare hands you'll more than likely need a gun to defend yourself. You could try a stick or a knife (which if you had it your way would be banned as well ), but either of them is a gamble and you'll probably still get your ass handed to you. There aren't very many people that can fight with a bullet or two in their chest. A well placed bullet will drop the largest man alive to the floor instantly.

Guns are also fun to use. Shooting and maintenance are also skills that can be learned. Guns offer a lot more than just killing and not all killing is wrong.

Conversely, p2p clients/networks aren't fun to use. They can't save your life. The only thing they offer is peer downloads of predominantly pirated files. Period. Trying to compare the two is a huge reach and shows desperation, IMO.

Okay then , how about a border guard who knowingly lets illicit merchandise cross his border? The idea is that they're providing an information transfer service that is mainly used to rip people off and they know it. It's called being complicit, not to mention that guilt by association laws might apply as well where if one person in a group of people steals from a store then the whole group can be charged for it because they didn't do anything about it.

You are making the claim about the intentions of developers here. We can't prove it wasn't intended in their mind to be for piracy, but you can't disprove it. The burden of proof is on the accuser, which is why it would hold up in a court.

The idea of complicity is frankly quite stupid, as it works out to punishing people for not acting as their own police forces. That's not the role of people, and forcing it on them is idiotic. If people were e-mailing copyrighted files to each other, would you press claims against/shut down the e-mail service? or, even better, take steps to outlaw email as a protocol?

You could whack him to death with your oversized penis 8)

Accept No Substitutes!!!

Seriously tho, what if he has a tank?

p2p has just as many legitimate uses, if not more, as a gun, especially since p2p has not yet ever been shown to have killed anyone.

How about that Massoud guy? They were threatening him with the death sentence for not alerting authorities about the upcoming 911 attack while he was in jail, in spite of the right to remain silent, the right to not testify against yourself and who knows what else. And he probably didn't know any details anyway, if he'd spoken up they'd have discounted him as a crackpot.

Yes, but one of the recently established principles of Western law is that the other established principles of Western law do not apply to anything that politicians can tag the word 'terrorism' to.

To carry the analogies one step further, consider this scenario: Some person somehow gets a copyrighted file, then encrypts it with GPG, then sends it to a friend over Gmail. Can Google/GNU/Philip Zimmerman be held responsible? (This is not necessarily an unlikely scenario; record labels have sued lawyers who advised their clients that a certain activity was not compliant with copyright law, and also the venture capital company that funded Napster.)

The difference being that GPG and Gmail were not designed specifically for distributing pirated files. They are generic applications used predominantly for other things. File sharing applications simply don't have that argument. They are used predominantly for distributing pirated material somewhat anonymously.

Could you please source that? And even assuming it's true, how is it not applicable to guns?

Guns are a poor example considering we as Americans have the explicit constitutional right to own them.

But why do you enjoy participating in circular argument threads? I'll never understand why people get satisfaction out of repeating the same arguments over and over again to the same people.

Reeducation Matthew. Reeducation over the Internet. Not possible? It is quite possible. Almost impossible? True, but it is possible. You just need enough time and nerves.

But yeah, mostly people do it in hopes that the other will actually agree with them. Which never happens of course. But hope persists. Hope can set you free!

Well, the thread was supposed to be about the state of IP law and where it should go from here.

However, a certain member has taken it upon him/herself to bury his/her head in the sand and repeat the same broken arguments over and over.

I don't think any one of us has a thorough enough understanding of IP law to really discuss it. Any law majors here? Didn't think so. Thread closed.

You mean like Thomas Harte?

AFAICT, he hasn't really been participating in the discussion. He has a single post that isn't directly related to IP law. Also, he's a law major?

Yes, he is. I don't know if he's passed the bar yet, but he has a law education. As for knowledge of IP law in general--I know more than you do about it, bucko. I may not be a law major, but I've taken plenty of classes on the topic as well as quite a bit of private research.

Also, LAW has as many sub practises as Medical doctors have. You have to specialize in a specific area to be any good in it. So while Thomas may be a Law major, he may not make a good case for any IP case if he hasn't been studying it thoroughly.

Copyright does not control how you may use a work.

It controls how you may COPY it. COPY as in redistribution.

To copy music from your cd to your pc may involve the word "copy" in lay terms, but it is not redistribution in the slightest unless it being on the pc is a form of distribution.

"but what if someone else comes along and listens to it, copies it off" then that is redistribution, or broadcast, and that is the act that infringes, not the copying from cd->computer.

Remember, this is not copy as in "the laser of the cd drive copies information off the cd and sends it through the wire to the speaker which copies it into the air which is then copied by your nerves in your ear, etc", but about redistributing the work to others. Untill another person has it, then it hasn't been redistributed. And the moment the other person gets it, it was that explicit link that was infringing the copyright, NOT anything else that made it happen, HOWEVER you would probably have to argue that in a court, as it is the sort of thing a judge should decide on.

Because they may argue that the prior things were a part of the redistribution process, whereas in reality they were a part of use.

And copyright cannot in any way controll usage. You may enter into a contractual agreement that controlls your usage of something, and that is what many products would like to imply (EULA's and the like) but that is not copyright law.

Will be crippled? Don't you mean IS crippled? That you very much doubt that the billion-dollar music industry IS crippled by people sharing songs.

Because, as I seem to recall, that is what people are doing. This is like the issue of gun control. Figuratively speaking, to the pro-"IP" crowd (that is the people that commonly state they are pro-IP but I suspect are really pro-aristocracy), you DO NOT have the option of no infringements, as they exists regardless of the law. ALL you can do is punish people for not abiding by your views of how they should live their lives, which IIRC is not what they elected you to do. How very aristocatic of you, how very statist. Yes there are finer points here, and I wish that people would be honest about these points, instead of ignoring them while spewing incoherent bs and doing whatever they want.

People should pay due compensation for any unauthorized redistribution of copyrighted works? YES I totally agree.

But:

People have no say in my unjust immoral laws and must bow down to my authority? Your usage of "my" property that you payed for is very unbecomming, someone else could just come along and grab a copy, but no I won't try you for that actual infringement, i'll just say that you can't have it like that at all, so then it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to infringe! Why would you want music on a computer, WHAT IF YOU INFRINGED "MY" RIGHTS! You're why we can't have good things, no such usage for you! AFTER ALL I AM YOUR LORD, YOU DARE TO DEFY ME?

People have been taken to court for pedantic frivilous reasons, there have been many such stories on slashdot look it up sometime. THAT is a real problem IMHO, i believe that legislation should be written to curb this threat to civilised society. Or is that unreasonable? How about these other laws such as the DMCA? If they exist then surely that is a precedent to consider in the level of scope and intrusiveness of laws, or are we just unworthy?

The Music industry was doomed before p2p caught on. Record sales were down, and they had no explanation till the internet caught on and people could actually get what they wanted at a decent price. Their only other choice was to pay the for a $25 CD that may or may not have any good music on it.

If you don't give the consumer what it wants, it'll find a way to get it with or without you.

The labels killed their own industry by locking it up and being too inflexible.

Technically, since every action you could take relating to a copyrighted work on the computer creates a copy (even if just in RAM), they can regulate anything, really.

@m c:

- Source

I don't sanction commercial piracy (the only type for which I use the word), because they're making money off someone else's creativity. However, non-commercial illicit copying and the completely legal and harmless things like writing search engines that the RIAA etc have been suing people for is not a problem, in my view.

Licensing music, owning music, and owning a copy of the music are three different things. Licensing music is something you see music studios do to give them limitted redistributable rights (eg. a previously-made song for the end credits of a movie, or otherwise as part of a movie's soundtrack). Owning the music is something only the creator can do (unless you're the RIAA and wrestle it from them). Owning a copy of the music is something you do when you buy a CD.

Each of the three gives you different limits on what you can do.

Notice it doesn't say you can't make a copy (eg. CD to HD). Just that you have a limitted (as opposed to non-existant) right to reproduce it.

The "Copyright Clause" of the Constitution, which is, or should be, the basis of all our copyright law, is shown below.

Note it says nothing about protecting the rights of creators; the purpose is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". It also says nothing about "property" or "ownership" of creative content; it refers to "the exclusive right". This just is contrast to people such as Jack Valenti's ridiculous claim that copyright holders should have the same rights to their "property" as physical property owners.

Of course, one could argue that it would not be promoting the progress of science, art, and technology to NOT restrict the redistribution of their works, at least for a limited time. Do you know nothing of capitalism? if there were no laws protecting the rights of people as creators, and therefore no laws keeping others from sucking away their profits by redistributing them on the day of release, there would be no incentive left in America to create, as it wouldn't be feeding families anymore, or at least not as well. Trust me, this happened in Russia.

By contrast, being exposed to people's creative works helps other people create. Coming up with music by watching movies and/or listening to music, for example. Getting "into the groove" of creating by listening/watching something that sparks the imagination, is paramount for progressing arts and sciences.

I didn't realize America was so devoid of creative people that every single creator in the country does so explicitly for monetary reasons, and refuses to create anything if there isn't a dollar in it for him.

As far as I'm concerned, greedy bastards like that can rot. Whatever happened to doing something because you cherish the creative endeavor?

(I didn't say anything about getting paid for what you do. But your argument that "there's no incentive to create" is distustingly false. People of talent and drive will create regardless of whether there's a promise of money at the end of it or not. The only people who will stop doing so are the mindless drones that we can honestly do without anyway.)

I am quite aware of that, and that's why you need copyright at all. The idea was to make it clear that copyright was not originally intended in the end to protect the rights of artists (it's a means to an end), and that copyright was never and should never be construed as a form of property--at least not in any way comparable to physical property.

The Human Race is inherantly evil*

*greedy

I write this in all my files:

Does this make me a Greedy Bastard®™ ?

No.

Well, if you have to bust your ass 50 to 60 hours a week at a regular job just to support the bureaucracy and Bush's war, there isn't a whole lot of time to be "creative". Unless you get compensated for that time so as to quit your regular job.

Kevin S. Brady, Attorney at Law - Copyright Myths and Misconceptions FAQ

Notice that it doesn't say that you can either.

So why shouldn't that help come at a reasonable fee?

You might as well STFU if you're not going to contribute anything useful. Firstly, it isn't just American artists that rely on their IP to make a living. People from all over the world do. Secondly, many or most artists enjoy producing the art they do, but they can't continue to do it without being paid for it. The cost of living is [almost?] never free.

Keyword being reasonable.
Is it reasonable for the copyright holder to set the fee? Why?
Is it reasonable for the government (or other body in charge of "advancing arts and sciences") to set the fee? Why?
Is it reasonable for the recipient (the one that would use it to help encourage himself) to set the fee? Why?
Is it reasonable for the middle-man that had no part in the actual creation (only distribution) to set the fee? Why?

Yes, it is reasonable for the copyright holder to set the fee. The IP is his own and you have no implied right to use it. Agree to his terms of use or don't use it. Nobody has the right to force the copyright owner to allow you to use it. It would be most profitable for the copyright owner to set the price at whatever cost gets him the maximum profit, the same as any other business venture. Therefore, he has every right to set the price to that (or higher, if he wants; though it doesn't help anybody). Some people make it sound like their sale matters, but in reality if the set price gets the maximum profit then your sale doesn't matter.

Then copyright/IP isn't about advancing art and sciences, it's about money. Granted, Arthur Kalliokoski has a point with creators being compensated so they actually have time to create, but even then it's not explicitly about money, it's about surviving (which just happens to be done with money).

If a creator makes something, and prices it so highly that nobody's willing to buy it, how would the situation for the creator be any different than if everyone got it for free?

Right. So why the fuck would the creator do that?*

_{* Answer: he/she wouldn't**. ** Unless they had other motives than money, which is completely within their right.}

Just so nobody else can do it, too. There are companies get/buy patents and copyrights just for the purpose of extorting money.

Note that originally, copyright had no effect on derivative works, simply on verbatim copies of the content. I think that the original US copyright laws (no effect on derivative works, no effect on non-commercial copying, term 14 years unless author renewed for a further 14) are far more reasonable than the bloated, draconian idiocy we have today.

Explain to me how pricing something so high that nobody will buy it prevents everybody else from doing it* too?

_{* Also clarify what it is in this context.}

Simple, because if you create something, and someone else attempts to use something that looks-sorta-like-it-but-kinda-different, you can always claim they copied your work and changed it and givememoneynowpleasekthx. And as long as your work was publicly available before they made their version (not copy), there's almost no way they can fully clear their name.

Any copyrighted work or patented idea.

That has nothing to do with pricing... And you'd have to demonstrate that they copied your work before a court would actually side in your favor. If you could prove their work was a derivative then you might have a case, but if it's just similar then copyright won't cover you. Moreso, if your product was priced so high that nobody was buying it you'd have an even more difficult case because the other party could defend that nobody has purchased your product so it can't be a copy.

Kevin S. Brady, Attorney at Law - Copyright Myths and Misconceptions FAQ

Unfortunately, more and more the copyright industries have so much court clout and so much money that a court will side their way, and anyway the cost of defending such a case is prohibitively high for the average person.

The courts are unbiased. If they weren't they wouldn't be worth anything and law wouldn't matter, would it.

For the sake of argument, let's grant that courts are unbiased. But I would contend that they are impressionable, especially juries. And even judges must adhere to the letter of the law; a technicality could very well change their ruling even if they know it to be "incorrect."

Fact: Lawyers and their kin are not equal.

Fact: The better the lawyer, the more expensive he or she is.

Fact: The better job the person does presenting the case, the better chance his or her client has of winning.

Conclusion: the more money you have to spend on your defense, the better chance you have of winning. To believe otherwise is so naive that you should volunteer to drop out of this discussion.

Yes, but implying that the courts can be bought is even more naive.

You're playing with words.

The more money you have, the better chance you have of winning. That's all that matters here. And that's all the original quote meant.

Could you afford to pay an attorney $150/hour or more to defend you in a case that drags on for months? You might ultimately know you are right, but do you have the resources to prove that? A two year long court battle might be a drop in the bucket for a big corporation, but it's an impossibility for you.

And don't take my word for it. Do some research. There are countless cases of people giving up because they ran out of money or of rich celebrities getting out clean despite contrary evidence.

First, the person I was responding to explicitly said "America", so I was responding in kind. Secondly, you're missing the point entirely. I'm on board with the whole "creators should be paid" thing. But I absolutely refuse to buy the "money is the only incentive we have" argument; creators will create, regardless of whether they're being paid or not. To suggest that they won't is to severely underestimate creative drive.

How do you know what he originally meant? He said the court will side their way, which doesn't imply that their defense attorney's will drag it on forever; rather it implies that the court will agree with their claim. At least, that's how I would interpret it. It stands to reason that better lawyers will charge more for their services and be more effective in court.

I apologize. I see that he led you down that path, but I still think that you should have made it more generic instead of targeting Americans specifically.

I'm suggesting that many won't be able to create if they have to first work full-time on top of other responsibilities... How many of us would love to quit our jobs and develop open source games instead? How many of us do?

One of my favorite artists has written a particular song that she said was very personal to her. IIRC, the song was intended for herself and perhaps family only, but was leaked and spread across p2p networks. She requested that people don't listen to it and destroy all copies and even requested that sites like azlyrics.com remove the lyrics from their site (azlyrics.com, at least, complied). Are you guys saying that artists like her shouldn't express themselves in art unless they are prepared to share it with the rest of the world? That won't help creativity; only hinder it.

If this person wrote and performed the song, made an mp3 of it, and made it public enough that it could get out across p2p networks, than yes, she shouldn't complain.

The juries are biased. I'd say 8/10 of the people selected for the jury would take the side of the poor, lone man with a family to feed over the side of the big, mean corporation, hence the number of lawsuits that go through these days.

Helpless Consumer: "How was i supposed to know i had to pull the cord earlier when skydiving? I didn't know there was a possibility of injury!"

Corporation's Lawyer: "Yes, but it was clearly stated in the disclaimer"

Helpless Consumer: "Yeah, but who actually reads those things? I've got a broken arm now, and a family to take care of!"

Corporation's Lawyer: sigh...

But that's yet another thread.

So you're saying that artists shouldn't write songs and record them in recording studios unless they're prepared to share those songs with the rest of the world?

I didn't say what format the song was in. It could have been in any format. I don't know. Are you saying that artists shouldn't convert their songs to accessible formats unless they're prepared to share those songs with the rest of the world?

All it takes is somebody with access to the studio or perhaps finding a CD at the artist's home, in their car, in the studio, or anywhere else with the track on it to rip it and spread it. That could have been a friend, perhaps studio staff, a business associate, or anybody else that came in contact with her. The same thing could happen if a hacker breaks into your own personal computer with songs on it. Are you saying artists shouldn't let copies of songs out of their sight unless they're prepared to share those songs with the rest of the world?

Yes. Artists shouldn't use recording studios for songs that are not at all meant to be shared. (Unless they own the studio.)

Except the ones in a town in Texas that almost always rule on the side of the plaintiff, which is almost always companies trying to extort money out of people using the Patent and IP/Copyright laws.

And once something is ruled on, its used as an example in further cases, so many of the wrongly ruled cases in one jurisdiction will effect the rest of the country.

Don't be foolish. Songs can be stolen and published. How do you think movies get leaked on the internet before they arrive in cinemas? Bad employees. So its not the creators fault.

On which planet are courts unbiased?

I wonder what the musicians of Allegro.cc have to say about that...

Come on. You're arguing that a musician should be able to use a recording studio owned by the record label to record songs that are not going to be sold, just for their own personal use?

You don't have to be signed to a record label to use a recording studio. I think most, if not all, recording studios are independent from the recording labels. Users pay to rent the studio out for a given amount of time. Anybody can use them. That includes you and me.

In that case, it's fine. And yes, if a bad employee puts it out on the web, that's not good either. But that is not the fault of p2p software, or a reason for tighter copyright controls.

First of all, let's keep private and public works apart.

Private data is such that was never meant to be distributed outside a very small circle, or not at all. This includes things like personal information, private habits, sexual orientation, and private works that you never intended to spread at all. Now, spreading those against the wishes of the creator is malicious; but I don't think this should be a copyright issue. That's a completely different issue, namely that of privacy. Copyright, at least as far as we are concerned today, should solely be about public data.

Now, public data is such that was meant to be distributed widely, whether for a fee or not. It is to this kind of data that we should apply the copyright debate, okay? It is for these works that we can hold a constructive debate.

Now, if this woman only performed this song privately, and someone in her close circle spread it onto the internet, then that's not very nice--but that ought to be an issue of privacy, not copyright. If she did intend it for widespread distribution, well... then the whole "it was personal to me" thing kind of loses its weight, don't you think?

Ah, see, here's the thing. You're no longer arguing incentive, but means to support oneself. They are very different things. Incentive is what makes you want to do it in the first place; means of support is what you need to survive.

This isn't just some academic difference. It's a huge difference, and we need to have our terms straight, okay? I know a lot of people are hearing the "incentive" angle and having it pounded into their heads by the lobby, but it's a red herring and it needs to be kept separate from the real issue, which is whether creators can support themselves on their works or not.

Now, first off, let it be said that there's no such thing as a universal right to be able to support oneself on the creation of works of art. No one gets that as a guarantee. Your works might fail, for a variety of different reasons, including impopularity or improper pricing levels or anything else. This is slightly tangential, but it needs to be said. And you certainly don't have some kind of inherent right to get rich off it. I'm not even sure that the majority of people--average people who make average things, rather than excellent things--ought to be able to support themselves solely on their creations. It is possible to both have a job and do this, and I think that way too many people are deceiving themselves thinking that just because they're musicians they should be able to make a living solely off of their music. Most just aren't that good, filesharing or no.

Now, can artists support themselves on their works? I think a lot of people actually could, filesharing or no; especially if they dropped thieving middlemen like the RIAA and MPAA. I remind you again that this is not an issue of incentive, but of means of support. People who want to create will create; they'll just do it as amateurs rather than as professionals.

One thing is for sure though, and that is that most people who have something of quality to offer will profit, regardless of filesharing. Look at Sins of a Solar Empire, for instance; it has absolutely no copy protection and has been fileshared just as much if not more than many other games. Yet, it's the best-selling game of 2008 so far, with over a million copies sold. Does it seem like filesharing has been a problem for these guys?

Are some of the big names losing sales? Probably. But the first person who dares to say that these big names--Madonna, Metallica, etc--somehow are now incapable of making a living off of their works should have some sense slapped into him. They're more than able to support themselves on their works. It's not about incentive for them, and it's not about means of support either; it's greed, pure and simple. The desire to squeeze every last penny out of the audience, regardless of what that would mean.

And we haven't even touched on other issues of all this, including privacy, the lack of a link between downloads and lost sales, the fact that "lost sales" is a vacuous argument to begin with, etc. That's for some other time when I'm not capped to 5 posts per thread.

[/book]

http://torrentfreak.com/isp-will-protect-file-sharers-from-music-industry-disconnection-threat-080404/

Need to stop bringing that up, its likely to get your cap time lengthened. Though I'm completely surprised its still in effect How long has it been a couple years?

Why would ML take that into account? It's entirely logical that he should let the other posters know that he can't post any more...

Unless it can be mistaken for complaining...

In fairness, I haven't seen XG post the fact he has a cap in a while, so some probably won't know.