Raids Across Europe Targeting File Sharing Sites

from the mole-wacking dept

Well, here we go again. Despite a near total lack of these kinds of activities helping anyone, apparently there's just been a European-wide set of raids on various file sharing operations. It's happening in at least 14 countries, with police showing up at various hosting firms, and trying to take down various private groups.

I'm sure we'll hear the entertainment industry and/or law enforcement make some silly claim about how this represents a "significant blow" against file sharing. But, of course, the people saying that are the only people who actually believe it. Most people involved in file sharing via these sites will just move on somewhere else.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 12:32pm

    A Huge Milestone for Europe

    They now must have 0% violent crime rate now, right? Why else would their police forsake the safety of the public in favor of corporate interests?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 12:55pm

      Re: A Huge Milestone for Europe

      Answer: $$$$

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 1:02pm

      Re: A Huge Milestone for Europe

      But haven't you heard? File sharing funds terrorism. And has destroyed the American corn farmer. And somehow costs media companies more money every year than actually exists in the world. And help child pornographers.

      All of these things have been said, more than once, publicly, by industry mouthpieces. All are swallowed uncritically by people in power. Even though a lot the war on piracy is well-known by netziens, it's still totally under the radar of nearly everyone in the world. Those who don't follow the issue have only a vague, unqualified, notion that copyright are great and pirates are criminals.

      I think the biggest overall effect is that an entire generation is busy receiving an education on just how awful, malicious, and economically counterproductive organizations like the RIAA are. Really big social change takes a generation or more to take effect, and the people following the matter and getting shakedown lawsuit notices from big law firms today will grow to be our next generation of senators, judges, legislators, and police.

      The times, they are a changin'

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    TPBer, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 12:38pm

    TPB

    Did they take TPB offline for the moment. cannot get to it, maybe it's make connection. Torrentday and Demonoid are running fine as well as rapidshare. They seem to have only gone after the most public sites.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 12:50pm

    "Sharing" has a nice ring, but "distribution" is more accurate, with some of the distribution being A-OK and some not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Sep 7th, 2010 @ 1:01pm

      Re:

      Just like some driving is A-OK and some not, but you don't see police stampeding the car dealerships (or the DOT).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 1:23pm

      Re:

      "Sharing" has a nice ring, but "distribution" is more accurate, with some of the distribution being A-OK and some not.

      "Automobile driving" had a nice ring to it too, but "destroying the buggy business" was more accurate.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The Groove Tiger (profile), Sep 7th, 2010 @ 4:36pm

      Re:

      "Government" has a nice ring, but "oppression" is more accurate, with some of the oppression being A-OK and some not.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    chris (profile), Sep 7th, 2010 @ 1:03pm

    this is supposed to target "the scene"

    this is supposed to be directed at the warez scene, i.e. the release groups and top sites. this is the middle tier of the infamous "pyramid of piracy".

    it will be interesting to see who, if anyone, is affected. security among these types is supposed to be fairly tight and the distribution supposedly happens via darknets.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 1:04pm

    Ha, good luck with that. China will keep pumping bootleg dvd's out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 1:29pm

    missed me

    missed me now you gotz to ...never mind

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 1:31pm

    p.s. they do this every year bout this time

    WHY? cause the good tv shows will soon air and they misleadingly believe that you an stop the so called scene.

    THEY dont understand its cellular nature makes it virtually impossible to stomp it out and its viral nature in spreading.

    Anyways back to upping and downloading.

    this public service announcement brought you by the letter S and the word SHOVEL, cause you know they are just digging a grave

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anon, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 1:41pm

    Message brought to you by Big Media

    0101100101101111011101010010000001100001011100100110010100100000011011100110111101110100001000000110 0101011011100111010001101001011101000110110001100101011001000010000001110100011011110010000001100011 0110111101110000011110010010000001011010011001010111001001101111011100110010000001100001011011100110 0100001000000100111101101110011001010111001100101110001000000101010001101000011001010111001101100101 0010000001100001011100100110010100100000011011010111100100100000010110100110010101110010011011110111 001100100000011000010110111001100100001000000100111101101110011001010111001100101110

    If you're really bored, go decode this message from the past.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 1:53pm

      Re: Message brought to you by Big Media

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 2:20pm

      Re: Message brought to you by Big Media

      0100000101101100011011000010000001111001011011110111010101110010001000000110001001100001011100110110 0101001000000110000101110010011001010010000001100010011001010110110001101111011011100110011100100000 01110100011011110010000001110101011100110000110100001010

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        SLK8ne, Sep 8th, 2010 @ 12:06pm

        Re: Re: Message brought to you by Big Media

        0100000101101100011011000010000001101101011110010010000001100010011000010111001101100101011100110010 0000011010000110000101110110011001010010000001100010011001010110010101101110001000000110001001101111 0110111101100010011110010111010001110010011000010111000001110000011001010110010000101100001000000111 1001011011110111010100100000011101110110100101101100011011000010000001100100011010010110010100100000 0110100101101110001000000011010100101110001011100010111000110100001011100010111000101110001100110010 11100010111000101110001100100010111000101110001011100000110100001010

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      SLK8ne, Sep 8th, 2010 @ 12:01pm

      Re: Message brought to you by Big Media

      ROFL!!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 2:45pm

    They raided and university LoL

    They are after the scene and after 40 years they found 14 suspects this will show the scene who is boss for sure LoL

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    MJ, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 2:47pm

    Good

    I think this is a non issue. these sites are evil and hurting artists, filmmakers and many more. so ... they deserve to get taken down.

    stealing copyrighted music, movies is wrong, ends up hurting artists and creative people

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), Sep 7th, 2010 @ 2:53pm

      Re: Good

      I think this is a non issue. these sites are evil and hurting artists, filmmakers and many more. so ... they deserve to get taken down.

      stealing copyrighted music, movies is wrong, ends up hurting artists and creative people


      Seems obvious - but not in practice true - just like the earth is flat the sun goes around it and things only moved when pushed.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 2:55pm

      Re: Good

      I'd ask you to provide a single piece of evidence supporting your claim, but since you don't even know what theft is, I imagine it would be pointless.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 3:57pm

      Re: Good

      01010010 01001001 01001001 01000001 00100000 01010011 01101000 01101001 01101100 01101100 00111111

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    BruceLD, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 3:27pm

    Subject

    In the end, nothing is achieved. File sharing still goes on all around the world. Nothing changes. Time and tax payers resources have been expended.

    The corporations are controlling the police and politicians. Does anyone know the type of groups that are powerful enough to actually control the police and politicians? Hint: the name starts with "m".

    Yes, the corporations will trumpet a "significant blow" in the presses (that they of course are partnered with). This will bring a smile to the faces of stockholders who will all finally believe that piracy is ended and all is well in the obsolete business models of the corporations and are once again thriving and flourishing and the good old day are back. Champagne glasses will be clinking and the executives and lawyers will be handshaking with grateful and blissfully ignorant stockholders.

    No jobs by any artists have been saved. Those that are allegedly hurt by piracy don't notice a change in their own lives. The only changes that occur are; the lawyers are handsomely paid, and thanks to the relief of stockholders--the corporate executives can finally pay off their two-helicopter platform yacht in Monaco.

    However, the reality is nothing else has changed and people are still sharing files.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 3:32pm

    01000110 01110101 01100011 01101011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01110000 01101111 01101100 01101001 01100011 01100101 00101110 00100000 01000110 01110101 01100011 01101011 00101100 00100000 01100110 01110101 01100011 01101011 00101100 00100000 01100110 01110101 01100011 01101011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01110000 01101111 01101100 01101001 01100011 01100101 00101110

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 3:39pm

    Now I'm curious to know what they will do when by chance or miracle filesharing stops and the revenues don't go up but down.

    Because I know I'm not renting(they call it buying but I don't believe them) anything from them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 7th, 2010 @ 5:43pm

    I'm sure we'll hear the entertainment industry and/or law enforcement make some silly claim about how this represents a "significant blow" against file sharing. But, of course, the people saying that are the only people who actually believe it. Most people involved in file sharing via these sites will just move on somewhere else.

    I see it as a victory for the good guys. Let them gloat.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 8th, 2010 @ 12:15am

      Re:

      I see it as a victory for the good guys. Let them gloat.

      Yes. Greed is good.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      martyburns (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 5:07am

      Re:

      Can you explain why you see it as a victory for 'the good guys'?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 6:18am

        Re: Re:

        Sure.

        A bunch of punks who thought they were above the law got taken down. From what I've read, these weren't end-users. They were higher up on the illicit file-sharing food chain. I imagine they're sitting in their cells now realizing that they aren't above the law.

        I value people's rights and the law. They don't. They will be held to pay for what they purposely did, and that is as it should be.

        That's my opinion.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Killer_Tofu (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 6:50am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I value people's rights and the law.
          Valuing the people's rights and supporting groups like the RIAA, MPAA, ASCAP, etc are completely contradictory. These groups support nothing but oppression, greed, and violating every right they can get away with if it means they will make a quarter. This site is chock full of posts about how the various license groups and labels have made massive efforts to completely trample on any right to privacy you might have. They constantly try to bully people around. And lastly, they are the most anti-artist groups out there, even though they claim to be for the little guy, they are anything but. They are on record time and time again as not paying the artists whenever possible. Pirating may, maybe, hurt labels (there is still no solid proof of this, only claims from industry paid for studies), but it sure doesn't hurt the artists.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 7:08am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I think it's a big stretch to villainize the trade groups like that. Artists don't have to do business with those groups--they choose to. I don't even begin to understand how anyone can say these groups are anti-artist. Nor do I understand the argument that illicit file-sharing doesn't hurt artists. Nor do I understand the argument that copyright is broken. Looks like it's working to me.

            I really don't understand what all the fuss is about.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Killer_Tofu (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 7:27am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              How about the fact that these groups have lobbied massively to pervert copyright to last way way too long. There is plenty of culture that belongs to the people right now that thanks to their lobbying efforts is not in the public domain like it should be. That is closer to theft than anyone copying a file is (copying is copyright infringement, not stealing).

              If downloading hurts artists so much you need to explain to me why so many artists are purposefully releasing tracks as free downloads or offering up entire albums and are doing great with it. The thing is, its not just the big name artists that do it. Its not just the small ones either. Artists from all areas are offering them up for download (small, big, medium, and even movie producers). Can you also explain how some of the biggest movies in the theatres were also the most downloaded?

              Did you read my entire post above? The labels are on record time and time again as not paying artists. How is that not anti-artist? Why have they been sued so many times by their own artists if they are doing a great job?

              Copyright is not working as is evidenced that all the useful tools that come up online, that the consumer market wants, the big labels sue to shut down. That right there is evidence enough that it is entirely broken. Even when the services want to work with labels, the labels go through great lengths to put such severe restrictions on the services that they must shut down.

              Take the case of ASCAP threatening a lady for playing music to her horses saying she needs to pay them for it. WTF? If that is justified than the group needs to be disbanded or have some employees there reprimanded for being severely out of line.

              I cannot understand how anyone can possibly support them unless they are making money from them (which, if an artist, is only the super big of the big, and even Eminem is suing his label). I really don't understand how anyone can say that they are for the artists. Nor do I understand the argument that copyright isn't broken.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 8:23am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                If you read through the opinions and briefs from the district court to the Supreme Court in Eldred, you'll see that there are lots of rational reasons to extend copyright terms. There are also rational reasons to not extend them. It's not a black and white issue. Personally, I think copyright terms are too long, but I accept that they are what they are.

                Sure, some artists and filmmakers allow their works to be shared. That is their right. Some artists and filmmakers don't allow sharing. That is their right. I like that they can choose how to release their works, and I respect their choice, whatever it may be.

                I can't really comment about artists suing the labels unless I know exactly which case you're referring to. I'm sure every case is different. I imagine there are lots of people who are happy with the trade groups. This would explain why people choose to do business with them.

                I don't find it problematic that certain people choose to enforce their exclusive rights under copyright. That is their choice. Others choose not to do so. That is also their right. Copyright gives them the right to choose the level of protection they want within the law. And it's not like copyright locks it all up. Only the expressions are protected, not the ideas. I think the safety valves are working.

                I'm not familiar with the horse lady story. The fact is though that when a work is copyrighted, you are using that work under a license most of the time. The license controls how you can use the work. I respect the licenses and the choice that the rights holder made in deciding how to license their work.

                What it boils down to, for me, is the fact that I don't get to decide how other people exercise their rights. If I disrespect other people's rights, then I am putting my needs above theirs, and that's not right.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Killer_Tofu (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 10:44am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Let me spell the horse lady out to very clearly.
                  Lady, plays radio, for her horses. You know what a radio is right? Is has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with enforcing rights. It is broadcast for free over the airwaves. There is no reason playing a radio that is broadcast for free (radio stations already pay for licenses) should ever require you to pay an additional license.
                  Make sense now?

                  If any artist chooses to not give customers what they want, then I say they relinquish all rights to be whiney about customers getting what they failed to give em. If they don't want to make money that is their choice, you are right. So they cannot then turn around and whine about not getting money when they have failed the marketplace. Can't have it both ways. And it is more often the labels being whiney bitches, not the artists. Sure, there are some artists, but its more the labels and collection beaucracies. So quit trying to make this sound like it is only an artist decision when most of the time it isn't.

                  Thank gawd that it is becoming more and more of an artist decision these days. One generation from now not many artists are going to sign up with those shitty labels if they don't clean up their act and stop screwing artists.
                  Then again, that is part of what the labels lobby for. Laws that will prevent new and independent start ups from reaching their fans. (see my above point about them suing new internet ideas)

                  I must say that it feels like you more dodge my questions than ever answer them. All you ever do is say "yes some can" and then never answer back with any logical rebuttal. It is more you just go on about "their choice under the law". Yah, we know you feel that way, you said that.

                  Here, let me quote you:
                  Nor do I understand the argument that illicit file-sharing doesn't hurt artists.
                  I replied about how lots of artists make money that way. Your response was Sure, some artists and filmmakers allow their works to be shared. . Soooo, you contradicted yourself then. Either that or you have to admit that you do Now understand how file sharing doesn't hurt them.

                  I will tell you how about everyone in the public thinks: Artists who use internet to their advantage and don't whine about it are with the times and not outdated. Those who whine about downloading are looked upon as being old and outdated. Haven't met anyone under 30 who doesn't feel that way (except for a select few whose goal it is is to make music and use it as a welfare system, which is not what copyright is meant to be).

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 11:12am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    There must be more to the horse story than that. So no, it doesn't make sense to me yet. Was there an actual lawsuit? Or did you see an article about it? I'd be happy to take a look.

                    Just because an artist doesn't give you what you want doesn't mean you can then just take it. Society doesn't work that way. Can I just decide to trample on your rights if I believe you aren't exercising them as you should? Nope. Not legally anyway. It is an artist's decision. Artists don't have to contract with labels if they don't want to. They enter into the contract willingly. I don't see a problem here.

                    I didn't contradict myself. Some artists choose to share, and some don't. Those that don't are exercising their rights. When people infringe on their rights, they are harmed. If I infringed on your rights, would you feel like I had harmed you? When the rights are infringed on a massive scale, the potential for the market is harmed. Courts have no trouble finding this to be true in infringement cases. Just because somebody else successfully used a different business model that involved sharing, this doesn't mean that all file-sharing is necessarily beneficial for somebody else who isn't using that business model. People get to choose their model, and the law protects them no matter what that choice is.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Killer_Tofu (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 11:23am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      People get to choose their model, and the law protects them no matter what that choice is.
                      That is a very very horrible way for any government to work. That is incredibly socialist. The government should not be guaranteeing business, only fostering it. Passing laws to protect specific business models is guaranteed to prevent innovation and the advancement of technology.

                      You said you couldn't understand how file sharing doesn't harm artists. I list out an (non specific) example. You acknowledged. So you must no longer not understand, right? You do understand now how file sharing is not guaranteed harm. Right?

                      Here is the horse lady article.
                      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090327/1113014276.shtml
                      Perusing this sites archives for even the shortest length of time shows today's collection societies to be incredibly short sited and not with the artists best interest in mind.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Killer_Tofu (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 10:47am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Oh, and I will grant you that I didn't clearly say radio in my post you just replied to, but it cannot possibly be misinterpreted as anything other than "lady playing music for her horses" and if you think that requires an additional license to a collection agency then I just cannot listen to you anymore because you have no logic skills and base your arguments on greed. I am going to give you the benefit of a doubt and assume that you just read too quickly over my post or something.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 11:15am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    I don't have logic skills and I base my arguments on greed? That makes no sense. Oh well then. I thought maybe somebody from Mike's Army could talk like an adult. I guess I was wrong.

                    Like I said, I don't have all the facts in the horse case, and I am certain that you are leaving material facts out. I would be happy to learn more if you could point me in the right direction.

                    Unfortunately though, you've shown yourself to be too puerile to talk with.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Killer_Tofu (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 11:25am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Did you even read my post or just get one line into it and assume the rest? I pointed the PRS & Horse Lady link in the above post. Feel free to read just one of many instances of how licensing agencies are stupid these days (and greedy). Actions like those cannot possibly ever be justified.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 11:36am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Yes, you posted a link after my post asking for a link. How was I supposed to read your post before you posted it? If I disagree with you that does not mean I don't have logic skills and I'm motivated by greed. You sound like a crazy person. I've got better things to do today. Bye.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Killer_Tofu (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 11:53am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          You did not read my post.
                          Allow me to bold a section for you:
                          Oh, and I will grant you that I didn't clearly say radio in my post you just replied to, but it cannot possibly be misinterpreted as anything other than "lady playing music for her horses" and if you think that requires an additional license to a collection agency then I just cannot listen to you anymore because you have no logic skills and base your arguments on greed.

                          You jumped to conclusions there pretty quickly.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              JEDIDIAH, Sep 8th, 2010 @ 10:26am

              Time to loosen the blinders a bit.

              > I think it's a big stretch to villainize the trade groups like that.

              Are you kidding? They tried to make all works works for hire owned by the Labels. They did this in a sneaky and underhanded way and tried to essentially hide it in the shadows of other legislation.

              "Hollywood account" is another good one. Plenty of artists and even former executives are willing to speak out about the nonsense that goes on.

              Then there's that whole "Glee" nonsense.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 11:16am

                Re: Time to loosen the blinders a bit.

                People willingly enter into agreements with other people. If they get what they contracted for, what's the problem?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Karl (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 12:46pm

                  Re: Re: Time to loosen the blinders a bit.

                  Joe: He's talking about when a Congressional staff member put language into an unrelated law that made all musical compositions "works for hire." Thus, the artists would never gain control of their copyrights.

                  Because it was a law, it superceded any current contracts the artists had signed with the labels. In other words, they did not willingly get what they contracted for.

                  Fortunately, a bunch of artists found out, made a stink about it, and got the law repealed.

                  That staff member is now Chairman and CEO of the RIAA.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 2:31pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Time to loosen the blinders a bit.

                    I'm not familiar with that story. I'm sure there's more to it than that. Got a link?

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 3:50pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to loosen the blinders a bit.

                        I'll check it out. Thanks.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Karl (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 4:49pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to loosen the blinders a bit.

                          You should really read the Salon coverage of the story:

                          http://www.salon.com/entertainment/music/feature/2000/08/28/work_for_hire

                          (It is linked in the Wikipedia article.)

                          Lots of good stuff in there. For example: The ostensible reason that artists' rights were taken away, is so that they'd be protected under anti-"cybersquatting" legislation. (It turns out they were protected anyway.)

                          In other words, artists' rights were taken away, under the guise of protecting their rights in the digital realm. Sounds pretty familiar...

                          Also note that the man behind the Featured Artists Coalition, the artists' group that fought the law, was Don Henley. He has recently made some rather wrong-headed statements about copyright, e.g. that the DMCA allows YouTube to "steal" content, and how the copyright office doesn't support copyright owners. It backs up my theory about why established artists don't understand file sharing:

                          I think that traditional musicians are so used to dealing with labels, they simply can't wrap their heads around the notion that people getting their music without payment could be anything other than people screwing them over.

                          That seems to be reflected in this Henley quote:

                          On the one hand, RIAA creates all this flap about Napster and copyright infringement, while with the other hand, they've taken away artists' copyrights.

                          There are also lots of nice quotes from artists about how labels have always worked against them, e.g.: "All we've done is gotten them to take their foot off our throats."

                          It sort of rebuts your assertion that "I don't even begin to understand how anyone can say these groups are anti-artist." But you're not a musician, so I'll forgive you. This is only the tip of the iceberg; if you'd like more stories, I'll be glad to oblige.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            icon
                            average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 5:03pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to loosen the blinders a bit.

                            I'm not a musician? I have an album on iTunes that you can buy. I'll never tell you which one, so don't ask. :)

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              Karl (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 5:31pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to loosen the blinders a bit.

                              Well, you didn't mention that before. I guess we have one thing in common, at least.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, Sep 8th, 2010 @ 5:54pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to loosen the blinders a bit.

                              No need to ask, I will never patron you or your kind ever again.

                              If piracy somehow was gone, you still would not see money from me LoL

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 5:58am

      Re:

      When the "good guys" stop trying to block me from buying legal goods, offer products I can actually play on all my devices, stop dictating which retailers I can use, etc. then they can gloat.

      Until then, they have done nothing except make people look for an alternative file sharing resource that's less likely to get shut down - just like they have when every other resource has been targeted.

      But, you're too busy making money from the broken system to care, right?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        PaulT (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 6:07am

        Re: Re:

        Hah! As if we needed an example other than the fact I'm not allowed to buy the Dead Rising 2 demo because I'm in the wrong country.

        I've bought a fair amount of music over the last few years from AmieStreet - especially after eMusic because prohibitively expensive after the major labels got involved. The content was variable (regional restrictions again), but some things I wanted were there, and cheap.

        While writing the above message, I got an email from AmieStreet saying they will be shutting down and forwarding their customers to Amazon. As a "gesture", they offer a free $5 Amazon voucher.

        Great, except: 1. Most of the world can't buy MP3s from Amazon thanks to moronic region restrictions (CDs are fine for whatever reason), 2. The voucher is only for the US Amazon store, so nobody outside the US can use it, even if they're allowed to buy from Amazon under normal circumstances.

        Meanwhile TPB and other will happily give me any album I want. I am willing to pay for f***ing music, and Joe's moronic clientele won't let me. That's why this is happening.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 6:34am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Again, you are living in Mike's World, where it's OK to lie in an attempt to discredit your detractors.

          I have no clientele. I have no idea what clientele I will actually have one day. Period.

          Give it a rest.

          Why do you guys have to make up lies about me? Can't you debate me on the issues without exaggerating so much?

          Mike can't, that's for sure. I doubt you can either.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Killer_Tofu (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 6:54am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Joe, ignoring the part where the poster refers to your clientele, are you able to respond to any other point in that entire post? Or will you not address any legitimate concerns because you have no good response?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 7:03am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Sure. PaulT seems to think he has the right to get whatever content he wants in whatever form he wants whenever he wants it. He doesn't. Like it or not content producers have the right to release things the way they want to.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Killer_Tofu (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 7:29am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Ok, so we are clear then that the content producers suck at bringing their content to market how the consumers want it. Got it.
                Don't be so surprised or angry then when the consumers try to find a way to get what they want. If a content maker fails to address the public, they deserve to go out of business and have more successful folks take over. That is the way of things. Begging for more laws to protect something that nobody in the general public wants is lame.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 7:47am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I wouldn't say they suck. I get lots of great content--more than I have time to enjoy.

                  I'm not surprised people "steal" content. Those people who do so are putting themselves above the law though. I think it's hilarious that when they get busted they claim that they are the "victims."

                  I agree about letting the market sort things out. Not sure which laws you're referring to, so I can't comment on that part. I will say though that there are lots of laws I don't agree 100% with. That doesn't give me license to ignore those laws. That's not how society works.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Killer_Tofu (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 10:33am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Society should never work that way. Just ask Rosa Parks. She got her ass tossed in jail for breaking the law. Got what she deserved! /sarcasm

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 11:18am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      What does Rosa Parks have to do with illicit file-sharing?

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        Killer_Tofu (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 11:29am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        You are saying society doesn't work with people breaking the law. I gave an example of how breaking the law isn't always bad. That is all.


                        Also, I quote you: I agree about letting the market sort things out.
                        Copyright laws these days are very much so anti free market. They attempt to force a lot of things. All of the services (trying to) pop up online are the free market at work. New business models are the free market at work. The massive collection agencies and labels trying to get more laws from the government is not the free market. Would you agree or disagree? And if you disagree can you elucidate some for me how laws from the government regulating more and more are free market?

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          vivaelamor (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 3:00pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          "You are saying society doesn't work with people breaking the law. I gave an example of how breaking the law isn't always bad. That is all."

                          This gets brought up almost every time and seems to be the key sticking point for many anti unauthorised file sharing people. To me, as well as I would presume to most people who share copyright protected files, the law is just a means to an end. Many who are against unauthorised file sharing present the law as an end in itself by citing its authority as the basis for their arguments. Because they never seem willing to explain the reasoning behind the premise I can only conclude that it is merely a crutch for their argument and a means to an end for their agenda.

                          Relying on laws for moral direction is a certain spiral into 'nothing good has come of this'. It's all very Orwellian.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            icon
                            average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 3:52pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            I think it's pretty simple. We don't get to pick and choose which laws we like and which ones we don't. You can't just follow the laws you agree with. Society requires you to follow laws even if you disagree with them. If you don't like the law, work to change it.

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              vivaelamor (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 4:21pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              "We don't get to pick and choose which laws we like and which ones we don't."

                              This does not make sense. The ability to choose what you like or dislike seems impossible to lose.

                              "You can't just follow the laws you agree with."

                              Probably not, there are a lot of unpopular laws so nearly everyone would end up in jail sooner or later. A fear of consequences hardly seems a compelling reason to agree with something, only to comply with it. I wasn't suggesting breaking the law anyway, just that the law isn't a reason to believe something is right or wrong.

                              "If you don't like the law, work to change it."

                              Sound advice.

                              I fail to see how any of this amounts to more than 'don't infringe copyright because you might be caught', which would admittedly be better than 'don't do it because it's against the law'.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    PaulT (profile), Sep 9th, 2010 @ 12:04am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "I wouldn't say they suck. I get lots of great content--more than I have time to enjoy."

                    ...and I bet you're allowed to buy it too! My point, exactly.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      average_joe (profile), Sep 9th, 2010 @ 6:54am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Of course I'm allowed to buy it. I can and I do. I think content is alive and well in this country. As far as i can tell, we're the IP capital of the world. Everyone wants what we've got.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                JEDIDIAH, Sep 8th, 2010 @ 10:32am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                > PaulT seems to think he has the right to get whatever
                > content he wants in whatever form he wants whenever
                > he wants it.

                It seems like you want to deny the First Sale Doctrine.

                This isn't just about whether or not artists get a pay day. This also is about the rights of individuals being trampled in favor of the non-rights of Media Moguls.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 11:17am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  What does the first sale doctrine have to do with illicit file-sharing?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    PaulT (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 11:54pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    They're both things that the content industry would dearly love to block, and have made great efforts to do so. They're also things that give consumers power over the moronic publishers whose preferred tactics cause them so many problems.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                PaulT (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 11:52pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "Like it or not content producers have the right to release things the way they want to."

                ...and they lose the right to complain if I illegally download something that they refuse to offer me legally.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  average_joe (profile), Sep 9th, 2010 @ 6:56am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  No they don't, PaulT. If you download something illegally they in no way lose their right to complain. That makes no sense. Saying that they didn't make it available to you in a way that you would like is not a defense. You can't actually be serious, can you?

                  I bet if you get busted you'll think you are a victim. LOL!

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            PaulT (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 11:50pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Again, you are living in Mike's World, where it's OK to lie in an attempt to discredit your detractors."

            Please, point out where I told a lie. You claim to work as an IP litigator, or at least aiming for a career in said industry. Therefore, your clientele - present or future - is what I consider to be the problem.

            So, either you're lying about yourself, or you're pointlessly defending a broken system to which you have no tie. Which is it?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              average_joe (profile), Sep 9th, 2010 @ 6:58am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              You suffer from the same problem as Mike. I don't have any clientele. I don't know what clientele I will have in the future. Just because I'm not against copyright infringement lawsuits doesn't mean I will one day sue people for copyright infringement.

              Why don't you and Mike wait until I actually do something before you hold it against me.

              Blaming me for something I haven't done yet is ridiculous.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 6:30am

        Re: Re:

        You've been drinking too much of Mike's Kool-Aid. That stuff will rot your brain. I haven't profited one penny from the system, broken or otherwise.

        Just because I'm considering a career in IP doesn't mean I'm going to do all of the worst things in IP you can think of. That's a huge jump in logic that Mike makes, and it is completely without basis. Of course that doesn't stop Mike from saying it.

        Why let the truth get in the way when you are trying to discredit someone you don't like, right, Mike? So, so sad.

        Drink Mike's Kool-Aid and believe in his fairytales if that's what you want to do. I'll focus on the real world, thank you very much.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Sep 8th, 2010 @ 2:04pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Your trolling is getting more entertaining. Bravo.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 2:30pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            So says the spineless twit so insecure in his point of view that he can't even make a screen name. Another mindless Mike lover with nothing of substance to say. Congrats!

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Niall (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 3:39pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Why is it the mindless shills always have to be so mindlessly abusive? Especially about Mike, even when 'fighting' with other commenters? Can't come up with any actual real arguments?

              Shame, you were actually making somewhat more sense than some of the other darryls out there...

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 3:54pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I'm often abused for having opinions that differ than the techdirt norm, so that's made me abusive. At least Mike isn't threatening to censor me today. I should calm down though. Point taken. Thanks.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Sep 10th, 2010 @ 8:30am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I note that you didn't deny your trolling. Unsurprising, though.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                average_joe (profile), Sep 10th, 2010 @ 8:55am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Sigh. I didn't think it needed to be acknowledged.

                Look, I'm an open book. I've shared the fact that I'm in law school.

                I'm in a four-year program and I've got two years left. I'll sit for the bar in July of 2012. That's 22 months away.

                I have no idea what kind of law I'll practice after that.

                I enjoy learning about IP and I'm interested in practicing it. I'm helping to get the IP law group back together at my school.

                Maybe I'll do IP, maybe I won't. I really don't know.

                I work for a federal judge as an intern. I do research for the court, and I've got an all access pass to the behind-the-scene action.

                I really enjoy working for the court, and I'm considering getting a job as a clerk at the Court of Appeals once I graduate.

                Maybe that won't happen though. I don't know.

                I'm not sure how any of that makes me a troll. I post what I honestly believe to be true, and my posts usually have substance to them.

                If that's trollish, then I don't really understand why.

                I don't many other posters being so honest about themselves.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Sep 11th, 2010 @ 6:59am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Going around whining about your hurt feelings in every other post and insulting Mike and everyone who happens to agree with him and disagree with you is the definition of trolling.

                  You are a troll.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    average_joe (profile), Sep 11th, 2010 @ 7:02am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    You are certainly welcome to your opinion. I can't really categorize you since you don't create a user ID and a persona. Are you uncomfortable with establishing good will?

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Sep 12th, 2010 @ 2:10pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Start flagging each and every abusive post it makes.

                    Flag it if it has nothing to do with the topic.

                    Report early and often.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Sep 8th, 2010 @ 5:32pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Once more you prove yourself to be dumb.

          People don't need to see you doing it, they know already the path you chose will lead you to it so you will be as bad as the other ones if not worst.

          You are part of growing cancer that destroy societies, culture, impoverishing people and destroying economies.

          You are just another a-hole in a big line of a-holes.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            average_joe (profile), Sep 9th, 2010 @ 7:01am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Again, unless you have a crystal ball that works, you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm just as likely to end up working for the EFF defending people sued by spamigation as I am to be the one suing. I probably won't even end up in IP litigation. I don't really know, and you don't either.

            Why don't you wait until I actually do something before you criticize me for doing it?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 5:51pm

    not changing much

    I still won't buy the stuff if the block me from downloading it. Still not worth the money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    TPBer, Sep 7th, 2010 @ 6:26pm

    It slowed me down..

    to only 30 GB tis weekend :O

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    pacopollo (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 1:49am

    more about stoppen revolution's like Chillwave.

    Seems to me that the recording business crack down on file sharing sites is not about stopping file sharing, but more about stopping real revolutions like the Chillwave thing that's starting to run wild. Those kids, used to sharing music, are literally dumping their bedroom made songs on the net for free in astonishing quality.

    If you can't kill the revolution, stop the infrastructure it depends on.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    TDR, Sep 8th, 2010 @ 7:55am

    AJ, you say file sharing harms artists, yet you fail to back that claim up. I want either a complete chain of causality from a shared file to artists supposedly harmed by that sharing with documented evidence from non-industry sources or an admission from you that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and are just trolling for trolling's sake. And if you provide neither, it will simply be proof of the latter. The choice is yours. Not that I expect much, since as a lawyer-wannabe, you can barely even be classified as human.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 8:05am

      Re:

      Is it really necessary to say I "can barely even be classified as human"?

      I was actually going to answer your question until I read that last line.

      Why is that people who disagree with you are wrong? That's high-school thinking. In the real world, there are good arguments on either side of a given issue. It's not black and white.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Killer_Tofu (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 11:33am

        Re: Re:

        While I wouldn't say anything along the lines of you can't be human (you must be to be posting here I would assume, unless you are an awesome jump in evolution!), I also would love to see any proof that file sharing actually harms artists. I have seen none that wasn't paid for by those lobbying for more laws to protect the 50's style of business. Even some of those conclusions from the reports they paid to have done have had their own researchers point out that what the RIAA claims is not at all what their study said and it took a deliberate misreading to get to where the RIAA got from the study. (Minor Note: It might not have been the RIAA specifically but it was one of those types of lobbying groups)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 11:52am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Courts cut right through this rather easily. They ponder whether the infringing activity, if carried out on a large scale, would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work. When considering an infringer giving away the copyrighted work for free, it is very easy to answer the inquiry in the affirmative.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Killer_Tofu (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 11:55am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            A judge saying sure does not constitute a conclusive scientific study. Judge is merely going by the law saying that the infringee can seek damages. That does not prove much other than what the laws currently on the books are. Still waiting for the evidence.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 12:21pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              You are missing the point. It's so incredibly obvious that courts walk right through it with ease. You don't have to have a scientific study. You ask the hypothetical question: If the infringement were widespread on a massive scale, would it adversely affect the potential market? When talking about somebody giving away a work for free, the answer is clearly yes. Res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Killer_Tofu (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 12:30pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                You are missing the point. It is so incredibly obvious that the court's purpose is to interpret the laws that are on the books. The laws on the books say "if you distribute you will owe money". The only thing you can take away from a court decision is what the current laws on the book mean, and if the person accused of committing a crime broke that law or not. Please explain how an interpretation of law counts as a scientific study?
                Still waiting for actual evidence, and not an interpretation of the law on the books.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 2:34pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  You are still missing the point. That's OK, neither one of us is ever going to convince the other one of anything. I will predict this though. Things will never be the way you want them to be. Never.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    vivaelamor (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 3:31pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "You are still missing the point. That's OK, neither one of us is ever going to convince the other one of anything."

                    If you feel that is the only point to a debate then that is a shame and seems rather arrogant. You should only need to communicate your point of view clearly enough for other people to understand it. The rest is their choice whether to agree with you.

                    You seem to put all your energy into citing authority to back up your claims rather than getting to the bottom of an argument. I don't see the point in claiming that you are right if you can't be bothered to try and communicate why you believe so. If the answer is so obvious then why would you rather waste your time repeating how obvious it is instead of explaining it.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Karl (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 2:55pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                You ask the hypothetical question: If the infringement were widespread on a massive scale, would it adversely affect the potential market? When talking about somebody giving away a work for free, the answer is clearly yes.

                Labels have been "giving away a work for free" for eighty yers. It is called radio. It did not hamper the ability for labels to make money. In fact, it helped them make money so much, that for decades the labels illegally paid the radio station to get their music on the air (and to not play music that was not on a major label).

                Likewise, tons of studies over the past ten years have suggested that file sharing does not result in "lost sales." On the other hand, the only studies that do show piracy losses are put out by the recording industry themselves, and are so flawed that even the government's copyright agencies criticised them for being innaccurate.

                Some reading material:
                http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-898813.html
                http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4718249 .stm
                http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2347/125/
                http://venturebeat.com/2009/04/21/study-fin ds-file-sharers-buy-ten-times-more-music/
                http://www.p2p-blog.com/item-1130.html
                http://www.ivir.n l/publicaties/vaneijk/Ups_And_Downs_authorised_translation.pdf

                I have not found a single study which shows how prosecuting infringers would increase sales.

                Plus, there is one industry that can answer your question. That is the movie industry. Infringement is currently happening on a widespread scale, and has been for a few years now. Yet Hollywood studios made more money last year than they ever did in their entire history.

                Not only is it not "res ipsa loquitur," it is probably outright false.

                But really, you're asking the wrong question here. The fundamental question is this: By granting the "right" to make these raids on behalf of copyright holders, is society better off?

                The answer is clearly no. Res ipsa loquitur. And if you put it to a vote, I'll bet that the majority would agree with me.

                So, following the Constitutional purpose of copyright law, these rights should be taken away. They're not inalienable; they're only granted through the will of the public.

                ...Well, if this happened in the United States, at least.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 3:57pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I'll check out the links. Thanks. I admit to not having studied the economic aspects in any depth. I just know that courts easily gloss right over that stuff. Perhaps they shouldn't. It's on my list of things to research further...

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Karl (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 5:48pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    On another thread, you were arguing that due to statutory damages, proving economic losses was not necessary. This is true (or mostly true, since the plaintiffs can choose to go with recovering actual losses instead).

                    So, according to the law, the actual damage done to the plaintiff is irrelevant. You infringe, you're guilty, even if the infringement harmed nobody. That's the reason courts "cut right through" that argument. It has nothing to do with "res ipsa loquitur."

                    It's also the reason that all lawsuits against peer-to-peer infringement have asked for statutory damages rather than actual damages. Nobody can prove there are any actual damages. If the USCG had to ask for actual damages, you can bet that "res ipsa loquitur" would only make the judges laugh.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Killer_Tofu (profile), Sep 9th, 2010 @ 6:11am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Thank you Karl for replying after I left. A few good replys in here too putting the ideas a little more eloquently than I was perhaps. I tried starting out with general references to lots of things that are covered here on Techdirt.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      average_joe (profile), Sep 9th, 2010 @ 7:05am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      The res ipsa thing I was talking about was in the context of a fair use analysis of the defendant's infringement, not in the damages context.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        Karl (profile), Sep 10th, 2010 @ 10:46am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Aha. I was confused because the person you were replying to was not talking about fair use.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          average_joe (profile), Sep 10th, 2010 @ 11:07am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          My bad then. The economic analysis I've seen used by the courts is pretty simple: "Would the infringement on a large scale hurt the potential market for the rights holder? Well, the infringer is giving away the work for free, whereas the rights holder is trying to sell it, so the answer is obviously yes." You get the idea. I'm sure it's really more complicated than that, but I can certainly agree that if someone is giving away for free the thing I'm trying to sell, then they're probably hurting my business.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            icon
                            Karl (profile), Sep 10th, 2010 @ 6:06pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            The point he (and others) were trying to make is that copyright enforcement infringes on the rights of the public. In order to justify infringing on those rights, you must show that a greater harm would be done if those rights were not infringed upon.

                            So, if copyright infringement cannot be proven to be more harmful than the rights lost due to enforcement, then enforcement is not justified at all.

                            Just as it would be if these raids were conducted to prevent people from ripping the tags off of mattresses.

                            And the burden of proof rests on the enforcers. So if people enforcing the law can't prove that breaking the law produces significant harm, then the law shouldn't be enforced. Even if legal, it is wrong.

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              average_joe (profile), Sep 10th, 2010 @ 6:36pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              I like the argument, but I don't see it ever playing out that way. As it is, copyright is the status quo. The burden would be on those who wish to change the status quo to show why it should be changed.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              •  
                                icon
                                Karl (profile), Sep 10th, 2010 @ 11:12pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                As it is, copyright is the status quo.

                                Yes, for now. Fifty years from now, it will not be. And everyone (Hollywood studios included) will be better off for it.

                                I'm already arguing with Nina Paley in a separate thread about how CC-BY-NC should be interpreted (or abandoned). In the very near future, current copyright law is going to be eliminated (by artists foremost) and replaced with some sort of CC license, and we'll be able to build a new structure from the ground up.

                                I just think it's a travesty that so many innocent people (e.g. defendants in USCG suits) will be destroyed in the meantime. I know you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, but I still sympathize with the eggs.

                                 

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              •  
                                icon
                                Karl (profile), Sep 11th, 2010 @ 9:22am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                Along these lines - has anyone challenged the statutory damages as excessive fines under the 8th Amendment? It seems like they would have a good case if they did.

                                 

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                •  
                                  icon
                                  average_joe (profile), Sep 11th, 2010 @ 9:52am

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  IMO, the best thing to come out of the Tenenbaum case was Judge Gertner's ruling that the statutory damages awarded by the jury were "unconstitutionally excessive."

                                  http://www.scribd.com/doc/34122318/Sony-v-Tenenbaum-Damages-Ruling

                                  The argument is couched in terms of the Due Process Clause, which is the Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment, not the Eighth.

                                  I hope the ruling withstands the appeals process. We'll see.

                                   

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Sep 8th, 2010 @ 5:50pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Why yes?

                Massive infringment, was being done since the introduction of tape recorders did the market suffer?

                Nope, actually if we take the top 100 artists and plot their earnings they all make more money then they were making 10 years ago, where is the f.ing negative effects you are talking about?

                The only thing falling like a meteor is plastic disk sales which is normal, where was the last time anybody saw a discman?

                And there is the small matter of what is the market, and what happens when markets change?

                Radio gives something for free did it negatively affect the industry? no the industry even keeps getting into scandals over it.

                So your assumptions are BS and so are your conclusions.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  average_joe (profile), Sep 9th, 2010 @ 7:11am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Most of my research into IP has been about learning how these things play out in court. I'm sure my point-of-view is different than most in that regard, but I don't see how that makes it BS. It seems pretty practical to me. I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of the economic arguments, as I've indicated.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    SLK8ne, Sep 8th, 2010 @ 11:58am

    Cookie jar syndrome...

    A classic example of what I call the "cookie jar syndrome." You tell the kids to not get in the cookie jar before supper, and what happens? If you're lucky you have a few cookies left!

    Human nature is such that the more you condemn something the more it will spread. We need laws, but, people can tell instinctively when they are moved by justice, and when they are moved by greed. This stuff is moved by greed.

    And remembering the Sony rootkit virus that SONY PUT ON A CD that infected your computer if you PLAYED it on your computer gives me a bit more sympathy for the pirates. What do you do, buy a CD that will CERTAINLY infect your computer or download pirated mp3s that MIGHT infect your computer? After having to remove this crap from a retired ELDERLY COUPLE'S computer it almost made me a rabid pirate. That's not protecting artists, that's greed designed to force compliance on the innocent.

    And Killer_Tofu is right. This isn't about artists rights, this is about greedy corporations using governments as enforcers. I'm an artist (not musical) and I recognize one fact of life in the digital world: anything digital can be pirated. If I insist on being a jerk and offering substandard fare, for ridiculous prices, then my customers won't pay for the work. They'll do an end run around me and it for free, and it's my fault for shorting my customers.

    These are facts of life. This solves nothing, and it's not going to save the conventional music industry. The more they post guards on the cookie jar, the harder the pirates will work to circumvent them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 12:11pm

      Re: Cookie jar syndrome...

      So you get to decide whose rights are important and whose rights aren't? I guess you won't mind if I trample your rights if I don't like the way you are exercising them.

      Why are so many members of Mike's Army so morally void? You've got a great group of followers here, Mike. Congrats!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Killer_Tofu (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 12:17pm

        Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...

        How moral is root kitting your legal customer's computers?

        Also, morals are relative. My morals are not your morals. SLK8ne says it perfectly with people can tell instinctively when they are moved by justice, and when they are moved by greed.
        More and more of society is seeing copyright laws as greed, not justice. And the percent will only grow faster the more they lobby for anti market protectionist laws.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 12:24pm

          Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...

          By all means then, work to change the law.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Killer_Tofu (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 12:33pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...

            Don't worry. We are. We are constantly citing proof and facts and using logic. The problem is that those who benefit from the broken system are trying very hard to fight logic, econ 101, and facts since those three things are not on their side.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 2:35pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...

              If so many people share your point of view, then your time will come. Good luck.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Modplan (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 3:26pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...

                1) "There must be more to this story".

                2) Vague statements about "missing the point".

                3) Appeal to majority

                You have now officially devolved into TAM.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            vivaelamor (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 4:02pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...

            "By all means then, work to change the law."

            I have a feeling of deja vu. When will you stop resorting to the law as an absolute authority, do you believe it to be some sort of deity?

            If your argument were just that everyone should obey the law then fine, I can accept that and disagree. My problem is that you use that as a premise to argue that because copyright is part of law then it is a moral right. You can say that infringers are immoral for breaking the law, but the argument is over copyright and not its legal status so the point is irrelevant. Something being part of law does not make it a moral right, even if you believe following the law is a moral imperative. I fear that this is a similar distinction to the one causing problems in our previous discussion.

            I look forward to being dismissed as boring again. It is high praise from a law student.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Karl (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 3:00pm

        Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...

        So you get to decide whose rights are important and whose rights aren't?

        I made this point above, but:

        Since copyright is a statutory right - granted solely through the will of the people - then yes, collectively we absolutely do.

        And I'd probably take it easy with the "morally void" insults. Glass houses, and all.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          average_joe (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 4:00pm

          Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...

          Yeah, but you don't get to decide whose rights you want to respect and whose rights you don't. Doing so is per se immoral. Collectively, people can change the laws, but that's different than what I'm talking about.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Karl (profile), Sep 8th, 2010 @ 6:38pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...

            Yeah, but you don't get to decide whose rights you want to respect and whose rights you don't. Doing so is per se immoral.

            It's not a matter of "whose rights," it's a matter of what laws. If those same users would flip out if their own creative works were shared, then you might have a point, but I don't see that happening.

            that's different than what I'm talking about.

            Maybe not as much as you think.

            All the people who share infringing files (hundreds of millions, last I heard) are in a sense practicing civil disobedience. They don't agree with the law, but they're powerless to change it, so they break it.

            Also, since copyright is a "negative right" - it's only the "right" to prevent others from doing something - then those who are prevented from action are parties to the law as much as rights holders are. It's shouldn't simply be a question of whether those users are respecting copyright. It should also be a question of whether copyright is respecting those users.

            Clearly, those users believe it does not. I believe that the majority agrees with them. The problem is that the majority universally believe that their opinion is irrelevant. They believe that copyright is there only to protect rights holders, and if they get screwed, tough shit for them. They have no idea that copyright is supposed to exist solely to benefit them.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              average_joe (profile), Sep 9th, 2010 @ 7:15am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...

              I see copyright as working quite well. Part of the aim is to encourage artists to create works, and creativity is alive and well in the US. We're the envy of the world. I see IP as an asset that deserves to be protected. If content wasn't so valuable, so many people wouldn't be trying to "steal" it.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Killer_Tofu (profile), Sep 9th, 2010 @ 12:58pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...

                IP laws have only been around for the last couple of hundred years, yet people have been making art since they realized they could smear stuff on cave walls. I fail to see in any way how IP is necessary for the creation of content.
                Youtube alone is a testament to that these days. Countless people putting videos online for free. IP laws are largely unnecessary. I can only see them being useful for prevent people from claiming your work to be theirs.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  average_joe (profile), Sep 9th, 2010 @ 1:32pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...

                  People have been creating since the dawn of man, but only recently has the technology existed to make copying easy. It's common knowledge that the printing press created the need for copyright. If you fail to see how copyright creates incentives for creators, then you should really do some reading on the subject.

                  This is a good place to start: http://www.edwardsamuels.com/illustratedstory/index.htm

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Karl (profile), Sep 9th, 2010 @ 8:31pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...

                I see copyright as working quite well. Part of the aim is to encourage artists to create works, and creativity is alive and well in the US.

                The causality chain has a link missing.

                Here's another argument. Infringement has exploded in the last few years, and creativity is alive and well. Therefore, infringement is responsible for creativity.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Karl (profile), Sep 9th, 2010 @ 8:35pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...

                  Also:

                  Creating works is only half the equation. The public ownership of those works is the other half. Both halves must be satisfied in order for copyright to be successful.

                  If more people create art, but the public is prevented from claiming ownership of those works, then copyright is still broken.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    average_joe (profile), Sep 10th, 2010 @ 6:22am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...

                    But the works do still enter the public domain, and in the meantime the public gets the benefit of the work. Copyright does not EVER lock up "any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." 17 U.S.C. 102. The only thing that gets locked up is that particular expression, and that's only for a limited time. And then there's fair use...

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      TDR, Sep 10th, 2010 @ 7:26am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...

                      Then explain why copyright was retroactively extended time and time again at the behest of Disney and the rest of the entertainment industry in an overwhelmingly anti-consumer way, keeping things under copyright which would have ordinarily entered the public domain by then. THAT is theft. And you would rather dodge questions than answer them.

                      Also, you fail to realize that the cost of making movies is going down more and more. Movies don't have to cost hundreds of millions to make to be good, and they don't have to come from the major studios or any studio at all to do so, either. There is art and media outside the major industry systems, you know.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        average_joe (profile), Sep 10th, 2010 @ 7:44am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...

                        There were lots of reasons why copyright was extended and why it was extended retroactively. Read Eldred and the briefs that were filed in that case for that info.

                        Yes, some movies can be made for much cheaper, but the ones with really awesome effects like Avatar are not cheap to make. I simply cannot imagine those films being made unless the makers were secured in their investment by copyright.

                        And if people want to make cheap movies that aren't copyrighted, they can choose to do so. Nothing is stopping them.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Karl (profile), Sep 10th, 2010 @ 10:37am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...

                          But the works do still enter the public domain, and in the meantime the public gets the benefit of the work.

                          Except that every time works are about to enter the public domain, the mega-corporations that own the majority of the world's expressions then lobby Congress to get copyright extended retroactively. (That the Supreme Court OK'ed this is a disaster.) So, the chance of any work ever entering the public domain is now remote - it's far more likely it'll be lost forever.

                          And the public gets some benefit from the work. It cannot get the full benefit of artistic expression until it is granted all of the rights (to which it is Constitutionally allowed). For example, until a work enters the public domain, nobody else is free to use it in any sort of derivative fashion - commercially or otherwise.

                          Copyright does not EVER lock up "any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

                          Yes, the "idea-expression divide." That divide seems to be crumbling lately. See e.g. the Catcher In The Rye "sequel," which is infringing not because any expressions were used, but because it had the same characters. In our old friend music, that divide doesn't seem to work too well, when John Fogerty can be sued for infringing on his own work, and George Harrison can be sued for writing a song that sounds similar to another song.

                          There were lots of reasons why copyright was extended and why it was extended retroactively.

                          None of those reasons directly benefit the public, though.

                          I simply cannot imagine those films being made unless the makers were secured in their investment by copyright.

                          That's like living in Ancient Egypt, and saying, "I simply cannot imagine pyramids being built without the existence of slavery."

                          In any case, movies make the vast majority of their money within a year or two of being released. (Most make their money on opening weekends). So, if we went with the original copyright terms (14 years), I doubt that blockbuster movies would be effected all that much. But the benefits to society would be enormous.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            icon
                            average_joe (profile), Sep 10th, 2010 @ 11:20am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...

                            My point was that the public benefits from the work even before the work enters the public domain. It doesn't get all of the benefits, but it gets a lot of them.

                            I don't buy the Fogerty argument. If he was the rights holder in the work, then he couldn't infringe on it. Obviously he chose to assign the rights to someone else. He has to live with that choice.

                            The effect of extending copyright can benefit the copyright holder and the public. Read the filings behind Eldred to see the arguments for this.

                            Maybe society would benefit more with shorter copyright term for movies or maybe it wouldn't. There are good arguments on either side of the debate. I haven't seen an argument for one side that made me think the debate was over.

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              Karl (profile), Sep 10th, 2010 @ 5:45pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...

                              My point was that the public benefits from the work even before the work enters the public domain. It doesn't get all of the benefits, but it gets a lot of them.

                              The public benefits, insofar as it gets the ability to pay for access to that work. That's not "a lot" in my book. But if you buy the theory behind copyright, all rights to the work are the public's by default. They are temporarily granted to artists by the public (via Congress), in return for eventually gaining the rights to a greater number of works.

                              So let's do a thought experiment. Picture a world exactly like ours, except the copyright clause never existed. Would all the works that exist in that world, be less than all the works in the public domain in ours? If the answer is "no," then copyright is broken.

                              I don't buy the Fogerty argument. If he was the rights holder in the work, then he couldn't infringe on it.

                              In case you're wondering, I'm referring to Fogerty v. Fantasy. In that case, Fantasy accused Fogerty of writing a song ("The Old Man Down The Road") that infringed on a different song which he also wrote ("Run Through The Jungle"). This is the same case that decided innocent copyright defendants could be awarded attorney's fees, because copyright is not a civil right.

                              The effect of extending copyright can benefit the copyright holder and the public. Read the filings behind Eldred to see the arguments for this.

                              I've read a few of the documents that I found here:
                              http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/legaldocs.html

                              They're mostly about whether, by law, retroactive copyright extension violates the "limited times" part of the Clause, and whether it violates the First Amendment. A couple of them argue for the economic benefits to rights holders. I couldn't find one that even suggests that it benefits the public, or helps grow the public domain.

                              Can you give a good reason why it would?

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              •  
                                icon
                                average_joe (profile), Sep 10th, 2010 @ 6:12pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...

                                There were several of them. The only I can think of off the top of my head was the idea that Disney would be motivated to restore their older works if they were granted longer copyright protection. The public benefits from the works being restored and Disney benefits because they make mo' money.

                                I'm not sure if I buy that argument, but there it is.

                                 

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  average_joe (profile), Sep 10th, 2010 @ 6:18am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...

                  I doubt the movie studios or music producers would do what they do if there wasn't copyright to protect their investments. Can you imagine Avatar or Titanic being made without copyright? I can't.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    darryl, Sep 9th, 2010 @ 2:45am

    Not significant blow !!!. ya think ?

    I'm sure we'll hear the entertainment industry and/or law enforcement make some silly claim about how this represents a "significant blow" against file sharing. But, of course, the people saying that are the only people who actually believe it

    Im sure Europe wide raids in 14 countries, would be considered by many (especially those raided) as a significant blow.

    I would most certainly say its a significant blow, very significant, it certainly turned up on your radar quickly.

    I would say a coordinated international set of raids, and the crippling of TPB, and other torrent sites that either no longer exist or exist in a highly neutered form.

    That is significant, by 'most' peoples standards. that with lawsuits to individual up/downloaders, and the sites.

    People (who think) are going to think twice before they engage in activities that 1. are against the law and 2. has an active and effective enforcement authority.

    As for getting to pick and choose what laws you want to abide by and what you intend to break, you have that choice, but if you break laws you violate the law that society has defined. And you are guilty of said crime.

    As AJ said, if you dont like a law, all you can do is seek to change it, you have NO RIGHT to disregard or break any laws just because you dont agree with them.

    For every law that you disagree with, there are hundreds that are essential for your existance and for a stable society and economy. You dont get to pick and choose..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Sep 9th, 2010 @ 3:12am

      Re: Not significant blow !!!. ya think ?

      "Im sure Europe wide raids in 14 countries, would be considered by many (especially those raided) as a significant blow."

      Depends on your definition of "blow".

      By the standards most intelligent people would use (i.e. the actual effect on levels of file sharing), it's insignificant. Most major trackers are still active, "piracy" is largely unaffected. The only real "blow" is on the taxpayer's wallet, after god knows how much money has been pissed away, yet again, on a pointless P.R. exercise.

      "People (who think) are going to think twice before they engage in activities"

      No, they're not. that's why it's pointless.

      "As AJ said, if you dont like a law, all you can do is seek to change it, you have NO RIGHT to disregard or break any laws just because you dont agree with them."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

      "For every law that you disagree with, there are hundreds that are essential for your existance and for a stable society and economy. You dont get to pick and choose.."

      Except, we all do - every single day. Stood by an empty street and don't want to wait for the green light? You cross, illegally. On a familiar road with light or no traffic? You drive a couple of MPH over the speed limit. There's hundreds of silly laws out there that nobody realises they are breaking, and hundreds of others that nobody cares that they are breaking.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Sep 10th, 2010 @ 1:30am

        Re: Re: Not significant blow !!!. ya think ?

        "People (who think) are going to think twice before they engage in activities"

        No, they're not. that's why it's pointless.


        So based on that one would have to assume the file sharers are stupid as well as criminal !.

        "For every law that you disagree with, there are hundreds that are essential for your existance and for a stable society and economy. You dont get to pick and choose.."

        Except, we all do - every single day. Stood by an empty street and don't want to wait for the green light? You cross, illegally. On a familiar road with light or no traffic? You drive a couple of MPH over the speed limit. There's hundreds of silly laws out there that nobody realises they are breaking, and hundreds of others that nobody cares that they are breaking.


        This is not a strong argument, what your saying is (like copyright laws) road laws are not necessary, the fact that you routinely break those laws, does not mean you therefore have the RIGHT to break any laws that you deterine you dont agree with.

        Speed limits for the road, are there for a reason, just as traffic lights are, so you would be pissed off if someone ran a red light, while you were crossing on a green (WALK), and run you over and killed you..

        Even if it was "just crossing" against the light signal.

        Does not make you any less dead, but laws are laws, they are there for a reason, and you dont get to choose the ones you want to obey and the ones you dont..

        Anyhoo, I just wanted to say, if you think file sharers wont take note of these raids, then you have to conclude they are stupid as well as willing to flaunt the law.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Karl (profile), Sep 10th, 2010 @ 10:42am

        Re: Re: Not significant blow !!!. ya think ?

        Depends on your definition of "blow".

        Well, I think it blows. Significantly.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    RT Cunningham (profile), Sep 9th, 2010 @ 4:20am

    Just give me my stuff!

    I obtain a lot of content without infringing on copyrights, but I also obtain a lot of content while infringing on copyrights (supposedly). Because I live in the Philippines (although I'm a US citizen), many sites in the US that sell content are either blocking the country or the IP range or both. There is a great deal of content I can only get from file-sharing sites, even though I'm willing to pay for it.

    Someone please explain to me how I'm trampling on rights. While you're at it, please explain to me how downloading only (not uploading) is considered copyright infringement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      average_joe (profile), Sep 9th, 2010 @ 6:18am

      Re: Just give me my stuff!

      When you download, you are copying, and thereby infringing on the copyright holder's exclusive right of reproduction.

      When you upload, you are distributing, and thereby infringing on the copyright holder's exclusive right of distribution.

      Google 17 U.S.C. 106 to see the list of exclusive rights.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    TDR, Sep 9th, 2010 @ 7:19am

    Still waiting for that chain of causality, AJ. Give me a specific example of a specific artist harmed by the sharing of a specific file, with documented non-industry evidence, step by step from start to finish. Otherwise you only prove you're wrong.

    Oh and another question. Do you even understand that just because something is a law, doesn't make it right?

    Sometimes, due to a horribly broken system (you may have seen the recent article about US voting machines being able to be easily reprogrammed to play Pac-Man, for instance, not to mention the numerous other problems those machines are deliberately allowed to have), the only recourse most people have to bad laws is civil disobedience. Think on it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      average_joe (profile), Sep 9th, 2010 @ 7:33am

      Re:

      I never claimed to have the chain of causality. You're barking up the wrong tree. You can think that means whatever you want. As far as I'm concerned, you're a despicable person, whatever your career might be. And yes, I realize that just because something is a law doesn't make it right. I've understood concepts like that ever since middle school. You're not breaking any intellectual ground here. I don't need to think on it, but thanks.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    TDR, Sep 9th, 2010 @ 7:22am

    Oh, and about the non-human comment, I let that slip because you should be aware of how universally hated most lawyers are, and rightfully so - all they care about is deliberately drawing out their billable hours and creating as many opportunities for them as possible through needlessly complex laws.

    Legalese is entirely unnecessary, in my opinion - laws and documents can and should be written in simple English that anyone can understand. But then that would mean less work for lawyers, and they will never allow that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      average_joe (profile), Sep 9th, 2010 @ 7:35am

      Re:

      I'm aware that you are a complete a**. That much is clear from how you present yourself. Kudos.

      I haven't billed anyone for anything, and I am not responsible for the complexity of the law, but blame me personally if that's how you roll. Makes you look like a total douche, IMO.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        TDR, Sep 10th, 2010 @ 7:28am

        Re: Re:

        Yet I doubt you'll do anything to try and undo that complexity that the law has. I didn't say you billed anyone yet, just that that's what lawyers often do - they draw out cases deliberately to amass as many hours they can charge for as possible.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          average_joe (profile), Sep 10th, 2010 @ 7:41am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Sure, some lawyers probably do that, and some probably don't. Believe it or not, some lawyers have ethics.

          I've never ripped anyone off in my life. I have no idea why you think I'm going to start now.

          Lots of professions charge by the hour. Not sure why you're such a hater.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This