Defining Success: Were The RIAA's Lawsuits A Success Or Not?

from the you-can't-handle-the-truth dept

Over the last few weeks, we’ve noticed that a series of folks who regularly portray “the loyal opposition” in our comments have been trying to make the case that the RIAA’s legal strategy for much of the past decade was not, in fact, a dismal failure. They’re posting editorials insisting that the lawsuit campaign was what was necessary to force laws to change in the RIAA’s favor, for one thing. And then, one of our regular “anonymous” commenters submitted the following story, insisting that we would never publish it because “Techdirt never publishes the truth,” as well as claiming that the following is proof that the RIAA’s lawsuits against music fans was a “carefully crafted legal action that has produced results.” The specific story is a story from Ars Technica about US Copyright Group’s lawsuit campaign (which we’ve been covering as well), but which includes the following aside about the RIAA’s lawsuits:

As the RIAA lawsuits showed us, most people will settle. Data from the recording industry lawsuits, revealed in a court case, showed that 11,000 of the 18,000 Does settled immediately or had their cases dropped by the labels. Seven thousand either refused to settle or never responded to the settlement letter, but after the RIAA subpoenaed their identities and filed “named” lawsuits against them, nearly every one settled.

After years of litigation, the number of people who have pursued a trial all the way to a verdict can be counted on one hand.

This, it appears, is the evidence that the RIAA’s lawsuit campaign was a whopping success. Of course, some of us might define success in different ways. The RIAA set off this legal strategy, back in 2003, by claiming that this was part of its “education” campaign to get people to stop using file sharing networks, and go back to buying music directly. How has that worked? Oh, it hasn’t. The number of people using file sharing networks to access unauthorized works has continued to grow at a rather rapid clip. And, of course, the real point of all of this was the bottom line: it was to try to help save the big five (at the time) record labels. Except that hasn’t worked either. The big five became the big four and the big four are pretty damn close to becoming the big three, once everyone sorts out what to do with EMI. And all of them have a lot less money than they did before.

As for how successful the lawsuits have been for those big record labels? So successful that EMI threatened to leave both the RIAA and IFPI if it didn’t back away from these lawsuits. So successful that Sony execs referred to the lawsuits as a “money pit” that have cost the industry millions without bringing back anything near that much in settlement fees.

The fact that lots of people paid up to settle extortion-like fees didn’t stop people from using file sharing networks to access unauthorized materials. It didn’t get more people to buy. It didn’t help the bottom line. It hasn’t helped the record labels sell more product. It certainly hasn’t helped the big labels stay in business. Hell, it hasn’t even helped the RIAA. Towards the end of the legal campaign, the RIAA ended up having massive layoffs of its own staff. And, let’s not even get into discussing what the average music fan thinks of the RIAA and the big labels these days…

Success? If that’s what you consider a success story, then you’re doing it wrong. How you measure a success is everything, and if your metrics are that you got a large percentage of people to pay up for extortion-like lawsuits, pretty much guaranteeing they’d never buy from you again, while the rest of your business burned to the ground, I’m sorry if I have to question your definition of “success.”

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: riaa

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Defining Success: Were The RIAA's Lawsuits A Success Or Not?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
418 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

i sort of figured this would be your spin. just take it as an indication that if their lawsuits were successful on a small scale, consider what the next wave is bringing. at some point, people will get tired of taking the risk of file sharing, and either go far underground, or effectively stop open trading altogether. i just think it is the start of the next wave, few cases went to court, and pretty much all of those were wins for the copyright holders. pretty much sums it up, no?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Their piracy war would be about as successful as the drug war and a whole lot more money is spent against the drug war than the piracy war, not to mention the drug war is far more justifiable than the piracy war in the eyes of many (not that the drug war is justifiable) and most people inherently (not just legally) consider using illegal drugs to be not in their best interest and selling them to be inherently (not just legally) wrong whereas most people do not see piracy the same way and most people do not see anything inherently wrong with piracy when compared to drugs nor will they ever and no amount of brainwashing will convince people otherwise (and look at all the education that people get against drugs and that education is well founded with logic and evidence that drugs are bad for you and hurt people vs the indoctrination against piracy which is nonsense). The piracy war is a major major failure, if they can’t control the drug war (in China even, where they’re communist) what the heck makes you think they can ever control the piracy war.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Like I keep saying, for big corporations controlling the laws. Easy. Controlling human behavior. Don’t make me laugh. The corporate influence on human behavior, just because corporations control the law, is far less effective than the populations influence on the law. The law can much less influence the population’s behavior than the population’s ability to influence law.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

(well, the law can influence human behavior, but it just means that people will do a bit more to avoid getting caught, not that people stop breaking the law. BTW, I do not encourage people to break the law, I think they should seek to fix the law instead, I’m just stating that the law is and will be ineffective at best when it comes to controlling piracy).

fogbugzd (profile) says:

Re: Re:

>>consider what the next wave is bringing. at some point, people will get tired of taking the risk of file sharing,

That did not happen with the first RIAA experiment. In fact, just the opposite as more people were willing to take the risk despite the lawsuits. The statement also ignores the upswing in things like encrypted services as more and more people figure out ways to get around enforcement campaigns.

The more likely result is that there is going to be a crack-down on extortion lawsuits. The mass filings are already starting to cause a backlash in the UK. In the US the situation will probably be rectified by the court system itself. All it will need to do is start enforcing existing rules that would prevent the filing of thousands of lawsuits in a giant bundle. The rules have been on the books for years but were rarely enforced by the courts because they were not abused. Now they are being abused, and it is causing the courts themselves problems.

But just for the sake of argument, let’s assume AC’s contention is right that people will suddenly decide that file sharing is too dangerous. Will that cause them to buy more CD’s? I happen to think that music is essential, and that people will always need and want music (it may be in our biology). However, it is not essential to buy music from the major labels. I consider myself a heavy consumer of music, and I find plenty of legal sources for it. I have not bought a tract of music from a major label in several years, not even downloads of major label tracks from iTunes or other online sources. Part of the issue is just from not wanting to support the RIAA due to its behavior; the fact that a major label’s name is attached to a tract means that I move on. There are plenty of other choices out there. I don’t need to download illegal music, and I don’t need to buy from RIAA companies.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re: Help you out.

Dmusic.com is a great source for music and it’s been out for a while. They continue to discuss copyright issues and are very, very, VERY anti-RIAA.

Magnatune is another place I love music from. I support indies so I think you should check it out.

Basically, a lot of musicians don’t follow the same ethos that “piracy is illegal” when they give their music away and do more with it.

Designerfx (profile) says:

Re: Re:

lets be direct and simple: just because you got some people to settle doesn’t mean anything was successful at all.

What case was successful exactly? In what way?

Lots of people hate the music industry so much now that they have sworn to never deal with it again. We’re not even just talking consumers, we’re talking businesses and artists.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Lots of people hate the music industry so much now that they have sworn to never deal with it again. We’re not even just talking consumers, we’re talking businesses and artists.”

RIAA and the record labels dont seem to believe in either economics or the phrase “customer service”. Looking at this from a purely scientific perspective. Everything they have done, the lawsuits, the laws being passed, doing everything to avoid risk, not understanding economic theory, fighting to prevent change, failing to listen to their customers, alienating customers and artists, has accelerated the failure of their industry. It has also made everyone hate them.

I wonder if oil lamp makers, buggy manufactures, candle makers, and blacksmiths were as hated as these people when their industries began to fail.

weneedhelp (profile) says:

Re: Evil AC, you are a tool

“people will get tired of taking the risk of file sharing, and either go far underground, or effectively stop open trading altogether.”

No tool, they just use encrypted services now.

“all of those were wins for the copyright holders.”
Yeah, and not one artist benefited from this, which was the excuse of the labels. They cry “wont someone think of the artists.” Reminds me of the lady on the Simpson’s that cries “wont someone think of the children.”

“just take it as an indication that if their lawsuits were successful on a small scale”
Yeah, I like YOUR spin on THAT.

Nastybutler77 (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“i sort of figured this would be your spin.”

Only you TAM could call fact, “spin.” Where in Mike’s list of what has happened can you point out, with supporting evidence, what is factually wrong? I don’t expect a reply, at least not one that actually answers my question, as you never do. If you respond to my questions posed to you at all it’s with irrelevant questions of your own. Just like any common troll.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: ... It's like 1984 all over again...

“People will get tired of taking the risk of file sharing, and either go far underground, or effectively stop trading together.”

“Your spin?”

Are we reading the same thing? The chances of being hit by a filesharing bomb are 1 in a million. The number of people using these systems has increased! Most people have moved on from P2P, to torrenting information which is already underground, but is going even further to the point that it’s frivolous to try to go after the server people (as experienced with Rapidshare). It’s as if we’re not paying attention to the bigger picture, which people have said about the litigation route in the first place. All it does is affect your reputation in a negative manner, and cause you to look like a self righteous bum who can’t do anything but try to enforce an arbitrary length of copyright.

“Win?” Hardly. Sure you win in a court case, but you lose where it counts the most, your product and effectively pushing for new streams of revenue. That’s what’s going to cause these people to get better. When they figure out that they’re in the entertainment business, stop fighting free and learn how to do more with their product, then, and only then, will they make money again.

Alan Gerow (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“pretty much sums it up, no?”

no.

“people will get tired of taking the risk of file sharing”

What risk? A 0.0000001% chance of ending up the receiving end of a lawsuit? You have better odds at hitting the lotto jackpot than suffering any consequences from the RIAA for downloading music. 18,000 lawsuits settled … out of how many “pirate” downloaders?

Are speeding tickets a sign of successful speed limit laws?

william (profile) says:

Re: Re:

spin? what spin? I thought try to make a failure story in a success story is more of a spin…

You really think there will be a new wave? So… while some labels has declare this is a money sinkhole, you are claiming more lawsuit is coming? So while the profit is dwindling, they’ll spend more money on a strategy that hasn’t worked in small scale. Let see, we spend 1 mil suing all those people and made 100,000. Let’s ramp it up in the next wave and spend 100 mil to make 1 mil. that’s such an smart move.

>at some point, people will get tired of taking the risk of file sharing, and either go far underground, or effectively stop open trading altogether.

You do admit that people are hiding deeper. Stop trading, I don’t think so. So far everything indicates the trading is increasing. In the light of this, will the next wave of lawsuit be as easy or the same compare to last wave? It’ll be harder to find them, and harder to prove infringement. Good job, you just promoted evolution while the laws/enforcement tools are lagging behind.

>i just think it is the start of the next wave, few cases went to court, and pretty much all of those were wins for the copyright holders.

Ever heard of the term, “Win the battle and lose the war”? RIAA and the labels are basically the classic example.

In all honesty, I hope they keep it up. Just going to kill themselves faster, which is a good thing.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Well, it has some success.

I know someone who got one of those “pay up or we sue” letters. He paid up.

Was this the end of the story? no, not by far. After his first tantrum was gone, he sold every CD and DVD of his collection on ebay (over a thousand each), although not before ripping everything. He then stopped buying music and videos altogether.

But now comes the interesting part. He started on reading up on internet protocols, encryption VPN and renting servers, as well as filesharing laws in various countries. He now has a rootserver in Antigua (IIRC) which he uses to run the filesharing software and pulls everything to his machine by VPN.

Mind, that one was until then an utter computer illiterate, the average “fix my computer, it is broken” pain in the ass, but now he is able to remotely maintain a Linux server and set up secure connections. He even learned to fix his computer all by himself.

Well, if that is not a success I don’t know what is. Making a person like that actually learn how to correctly use and maintain computers is not an easy feat, I tried and failed for about ten years and the music industry managed to do that in about 6 month…

Yeah, THAT is a success…

Billy Harwell says:

Re: Re:

Well, I think it’s unfortunate that there likely won’t be another wave of these lawsuits. I would LOVE to see it. Because, if one wave of lawsuits took down one of these bastard companies, maybe four more would get them out of our hair for good.

These companies are responsible for the decay of American culture. Indie labels forever!

Anonymous Coward says:

“The RIAA set off this legal strategy, back in 2003, by claiming that this was part of its “education” campaign to get people to stop using file sharing networks, and go back to buying music directly. How has that worked? Oh, it hasn’t.”

Unless you know how many people and what percentage of recording consumers *would* have used unauthorized filesharing services in the absence of such a litigation campaign, I’m not sure how you can be so certain that that litigation strategy hasn’t worked at all.

Sure, it hasn’t eradicated unauthorized file sharing (and I know there are sources indicating that such file sharing has increased), but maybe fewer people would use legit services like iTunes or AmazonMP3.com and more people would use unauthorized file sharing services if individual users had never been sued.

Cowardly Anon says:

Re: Re:

It’s a two way street on those maybes.

Maybe if those services had of been provided form the start, people would have been less likely to download from illegal sources.

The music industry were slow in figuring out what it’s customers wanted, and paid the price when people went to elsewhere for it. Instead of getting their head in the game, they decided to sue the very people who would give them money if they offered a service they wanted.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“It’s a two way street on those maybes.”

Of course. But we aren’t getting a lot of “maybe so, maybe not” here on Techdirt. We are getting a lot of “what a dismal failure!”

“Maybe if those services had of been provided form the start, people would have been less likely to download from illegal sources.”

I agree wholeheartedly.

Modplan (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Simply saying it wasn’t by redefining the metric of success to something not knowable (what growth would have been without law suits) isn’t much more convincing either. The stated intent of the lawsuits was to stop file sharing and stamp out avenues for it. 7 years later, it hasn’t worked, file sharing has continued to grow, their attempts at DRM has mostly failed and other industries attempting to adopt the same policies are facing severe backlash.

It’s failed.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

“Simply saying it wasn’t”

Who said that?

“redefining the metric of success to something not knowable (what growth would have been without law suits) isn’t much more convincing either.”

Do you think that’s an invalid metric? I can’t imagine a more meaningful metric than “achieving a result that is better than if you had not taken the course of action actually taken.”

Other metrics may be easier to measure, but less meaningful (e.g., absolute numbers of unauthorized downloads, absolute numbers of authorized downloads).

“The stated intent of the lawsuits was to stop file sharing and stamp out avenues for it.”

Eh, I don’t think anyone (RIAA included) ever thought piracy would be eradicated from the Earth, and I don’t think that’s a realistic measure of “success.”

Modplan (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Do you think that’s an invalid metric? I can’t imagine a more meaningful metric than “achieving a result that is better than if you had not taken the course of action actually taken.”

Unless you can provide data to show this metric clearly, then yes, it’s invalid. You’re redefining success to a metric that we can’t measure. Though I fail to see how negative PR, a continued growth in file sharing and having sued a small minority of people who do so that didn’t have the money to even go through these lawsuits is by any metric a success.

Eh, I don’t think anyone (RIAA included) ever thought piracy would be eradicated from the Earth, and I don’t think that’s a realistic measure of “success.”

There’s no other reason to do so if you do not minimise or remove file sharing. They have not done so. They have failed by their own measure of success.

“Simply saying it wasn’t”

Who said that?

You did by claiming saying it was a failure was only an opinion and couldn’t be true.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Let me refute the easy stuff first. I never claimed that it “couldn’t be true” that the litigation strategy was a failure. I only claimed that it’s possible that it was *not* a failure, and none of the absolute numbers that people seem to rely on here are definitive one way or another. Open your mind, man. “It definitely was an absolute failure” and “It definitely was *not* an absolute failure” are not the only possible viewpoints to take here.

On the point of redefining success, just because something is not definitively measurable does not mean it is invalid or nonexistent. Take, for example, happiness. I consider “success” to be taking the actions that lead to my greatest happiness. I can’t definitively measure that, but I still think it is a valid concept of success.

“There’s no other reason to [initiate the litigation strategy] if you do not minimise or remove file sharing.”

Ah, but you threw that word “minimise” in there, by non-American and/or spelling-impaired friend. That is exactly what I’m talking about. We can all agree that they did not eradicate the behavior they were targeting. But perhaps it was the best strategy to minimize such behavior. Showing that such behavior has increased in absolute numbers does not prove otherwise.

Any Mouse says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

You are dealing with scientific minds. That which cannot be definitively measured or defined is invalid as a metric. Success cannot be measured by that which cannot be measured, and thus this is not a success.

Also, you steer clear of the fact that it is a failure as it did not meet any of the stated goals. If you state goals and then do not meet them? You failed.

You, sir, are nothing more than a PR spin doctor, and not very good at it, either.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

“Success cannot be measured by that which cannot be measured”

True, of course

“and thus this is not a success.”

False. It may not be a definitively-measurable success, but that does not mean it is not a success. For years, man did not have a mechanism for definitively measuring, e.g., molecular weight or the movement of electrons. That does not mean the *facts* of such molecular composition or electron movement didn’t exist, just that they were not definitively measurable.

“Also, you steer clear of the fact that it is a failure as it did not meet any of the stated goals. If you state goals and then do not meet them? You failed.”

Well, I think it’s silly to take the stated goal of “eradication” or to “stop” file sharing at face value. I mean, if the RIAA is a bunch of liars, thieves, and charlatans, then why take their stated goals at face value as their only actual goals?

I think it’s reasonable to think that a reduction of unauthorized file sharing (or even a slowed growth) would be viewed positively (by the RIAA) as a good result of whatever action they take. Do you think that’s an unreasonable proposition?

“You, sir, are nothing more than a PR spin doctor, and not very good at it, either”

I don’t work in PR. Sorry.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

mike would always sum it up the same way. perhaps asking some of those 18,000 people how much file sharing they do now might make a difference. with the new round of almost 20,000 “does” information being sought through the courts, it wont be long before 18,000 people will be a good month, not a 5 year run. when people start to see their family and friends getting caught, there will be a change in the “give it to me free” mentality. mike doesnt want that to happen, so his summary is based on his desired outcome.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“when people start to see their family and friends getting caught”

This country will have a serious revolution. If you honestly think the legal system can control our behavior to that degree you are utterly deluded. The reason why people ignore the issue is because it doesn’t pertain to them, but if it reaches the point you reach the pirate party will gain tons of ground and people will force our legal system to change one way or another.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

It’s like with speeding tickets, people don’t complain so much about the fact that speed limits are too low on many freeways because enforcement sucks. When they are, like in the case of Arizona (I think it was) installing cameras on freeways that automatically give people tickets, people will rebel and the system will be forced to change. If history is any indication of the future things don’t look good for tyrants. If anyone honestly believes that IP tyranny can really start affecting everyone on an individual level (ie: with their family members being caught and whatnot) without having serious aggressive protests and probable revolutions if necessary you have got a whole new thing coming at you. That’s why this sort of tyranny was always enforced at the retailer/distribution level, it’s darn near impossible to enforce it at the individual level. China can’t even come close to stopping the war on drugs and they’re communist. The U.S. spends far more on the war on drugs than what the anti piracy industry spends on stopping piracy, and the war on drugs is a criminal matter, yet the war on drugs is a whopping failure. Do you honestly believe that the war on piracy will be any better? Seriously? Trust me, you don’t want the war on piracy to start affecting everyone’s cousin, this country will have a revolution like it’s never seen before if this piracy war really starts getting that much notoriety. Your best bet is to make copyright laws more reasonable ASAP.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

if the police are on the same street running a speed trap every day for a month, at the end of the month, more people will do the speed limit than will not. they dont have to get a ticket to slow down, they have to feel there is a significant enough chance to get a ticket to change their behavior. 18,000 lawsuits in a few years against millions of violations a year is too small of a number of a true effect. 18,000 lawsuits in a short period of time may have more effect.

remember, this is important: this isnt to stop the determined copyright violator. those people who would do it no matter what will still do it. i think that the industry is aiming more at those who are ‘soft’ on the concept, and are only participating because they think they can get away with it (or because their parents dont know they are doing it). if you change that group over from file traders to legal consumers, it has a bigger impact on file trading as a whole. fewer peers, fewer people ripping, longer download times, etc.

nobody thinks you can eradicate file trading, any more than you can eradicate drugs, speeding, or graffiti. the question is tolerance and permissiveness. tolerating lawlessness just creates the environment where everyone feels they can do it. the first tag on building is a tipping point, because if the tag lasts, others will join in. remove the tag quickly, and you might not end up with a wall full or graffiti.

copyright generally is fair: if you want it, meet the conditions of sale or rent, otherwise, dont use it. how hard is that to grasp?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

They maybe able to get away with it for a month but if it persisted everywhere for a long period of time it would

A: Cost a whole lot in police enforcement, especially if it stops generating revenue as people start following the law (since for every X citizens on the road, you need y cops to ensure enough enforcement to successfully deter people)

B: the moment revenue to fund it dried up and it stops, people will speed again.

C: If it persisted for too long and was too widespread people will influence the government to change speed laws.

D: A whole lot more money gets spent on enforcing traffic laws like speed laws than on piracy and yet those laws tend to be broken all the time.

E: People intuitively understand that traffic laws are supposed to have a good purpose (ie: save lives), anti piracy laws have no such purpose, and so they will be far more understanding with traffic laws than with piracy laws. Likely outcome if everyone aggressively broke traffic laws. Lots more people died. Worst case scenario if copyright wasn’t enforced. Existing big corporations go out of business. Art and music and whatnot won’t go away though, but even if it does, that’s not nearly as bad as tons of people dying in avoidable traffic accidents.

F: Traffic laws go on your record and can ban you from driving, piracy laws do not, yet the enforcement of speed laws on the freeway and elsewhere are a failure.

You have to realize, there are economic forces in play here. Widespread tyranny is really hard to enforce because for every 100 people that exist you will probably need maybe 1 person (I don’t know the number, but the number is rather big) to help enforce it. Basically, a huge percentage of the population is needed and even then it won’t work. I don’t even think a percentage of the population would really be enough to regulate the rest of the other 99 percent, they can only regulate a percentage of the behavior at any given time if that. Heck, if a minority of people wanted to break laws that the majority believed should be enforced, if the minority was organized they could probably get away with it. How many cops exist in a city compared to citizens? Are there enough cops to even come close to stopping the majority of crimes? It’s simply implausible for such a small percentage of the population to be able to exert the effort necessary to enforce these laws against a much larger portion of the population to a level necessary to really have impact. There are economic forces regarding labor and effort and man hours required to enforce laws vs labor/effort/man hours required to evade them and the larger group of people can exert more man hours of labor than a smaller group at any given time and so the smaller group is at a huge disadvantage if the larger group adamantly doesn’t want to follow the laws and if they cooperatively avoid being caught, etc… Basically, if you know anything about group dynamics, the bigger group usually ends up winning.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

a – you make a mistake in assuming that ticketing campaigns have to be economically viable. the police are paid anyway. they can stand on this street,or the next street, it still costs the same.

b – the funding doesnt dry up until you are suggesting that somehow the people would fire all the police. not going to happen.

c – the miracle is that people do protest to some extent, but for the most part they adapt their behaviors.

d – speeding is one of those things, most people want to go faster than is safe, thinking they know better. in the end, persistent law enforcement activity and laws written to make large excesses of speed impractical do work. ontario as an example has a law that automatically impounds a car if you are stopped doing more than 50km/h over the posted limit. it has had a significant impact in the amount of large excess speeding.

e – people get a better idea of the value of copyright laws when they are on the other side, actually producing or selling copyright products. when they are competing against people who are not respecting copyright, they can see right and wrong easily, and they can see the impact as their jobs disappear.

f – actually, enforcement is successful, mostly when you compare it to what would happen without the enforcement. you only have to travel to countries where traffic laws are not enforced to see the danger, the chaos, and the carnage.

“the smaller group is at a huge disadvantage if the larger group adamantly doesn’t want to follow the laws and if they cooperatively avoid being caught, etc.” – one basic problem here: the smaller group is actually making the product. piss them off enough, and perhaps they stop. then the larger group can pirate pictures of each others kids and their home movies. the larger group only gets away with being smug as long as they dont make the smaller group suffer too much.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

http://chronicle.com/article/A-Self-Appointed-Teacher-Runs/65793/

“The Khan Academy is a concrete answer to Mr. Shirky’s challenge to create a school from scratch, and it’s an example of something new in the education landscape that wasn’t possible before. And it serves as a reminder to be less reverent about those long-held assumptions.”

Welcome to the future.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

http://chronicle.com/article/A-Self-Appointed-Teacher-Runs/65793/

“The Khan Academy is a concrete answer to Mr. Shirky’s challenge to create a school from scratch, and it’s an example of something new in the education landscape that wasn’t possible before. And it serves as a reminder to be less reverent about those long-held assumptions.”

Totally random aside: Khan Academy’s founder and I used to be roommates, many, many years ago.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

“a – you make a mistake in assuming that ticketing campaigns have to be economically viable. the police are paid anyway. they can stand on this street,or the next street, it still costs the same.”

Despite this, people still speed.

“b – the funding doesnt dry up until you are suggesting that somehow the people would fire all the police. not going to happen.”

and this counters what I said how?

“c – the miracle is that people do protest to some extent, but for the most part they adapt their behaviors.”

They mostly adapt their behaviors to get away with breaking the law.

“d – speeding is one of those things, most people want to go faster than is safe”

Not true. Certain areas of the Autobahn have no speed limits and their accident and fatality rates are considerably lower than those of the U.S.

U.S, streets are designed to enable you to go considerably faster than the speed limit.

“ontario as an example has a law that automatically impounds a car if you are stopped doing more than 50km/h over the posted limit.”

I think most people wouldn’t go that fast regardless if the roads aren’t designed for it.

“people get a better idea of the value of copyright laws when they are on the other side, actually producing or selling copyright products.”

Monopolies have value to the monopoly holders, if you have a monopoly on the sale of hamburgers of course that monopoly has value to you. Doesn’t mean you are owed a monopoly. Just because something has value doesn’t mean the government should grant it.

“when they are competing against people who are not respecting copyright, they can see right and wrong easily”

Because asserting that those who agree with you are right makes it so.

“you only have to travel to countries where traffic laws are not enforced to see the danger, the chaos, and the carnage.”

Which makes my point, people follow traffic laws to the extent that they think it makes things safer. They follow the laws to the extent that it makes sense to them. Why are you arguing my point exactly?

“the smaller group is actually making the product.”

There is a plethora of content released under CC licenses these days, licenses designed to circumvent copy privilege laws. Plenty of people are perfectly willing to make high quality content free of charge. If certain people require the rest of society to go through the effort and cost (both monetary costs and costs in our freedoms and privacy) of enforcing an unowed monopoly just to make content I would much rather them better contribute to society and the economy by finding another job instead.

“and perhaps they stop”

I hope so. We don’t need them to create content and I think they would better serve society by finding another job instead of lobbying the government for more broken laws.

“the larger group only gets away with being smug as long as they dont make the smaller group suffer too much.”

The problem is we aren’t making them suffer enough. The smaller group gets 95 year copyright terms, that’s insane. No, they need to find other jobs and actually contribute to society instead.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Unless you know how many people and what percentage of recording consumers *would* have used unauthorized filesharing services in the absence of such a litigation campaign, I’m not sure how you can be so certain that that litigation strategy hasn’t worked at all.

He didn’t say it hasn’t had any effect, at least I don’t think he said that. But if the goal was to reduce file sharing (and I believe that was the primary goal), and file sharing has since gone up, then obviously it was a failure.

If your goal is to throw a ball 50 feet, and you throw it 30 feet, you failed. The fact that the ball moved more than if you hadn’t thrown it doesn’t make the effort not a failure.

weneedhelp (profile) says:

Evil AC

“one of our regular “anonymous” commenters submitted the following story, insisting that we would never publish it because “Techdirt never publishes the truth,””

Evil AC wouldn’t know the truth if he tripped over it.

It is a puzzling thing. The truth knocks on the door and you say, “Go away, I’m looking for the truth,” and so it goes away. Puzzling.
Robert M. Pirsig

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: "Techdirt never publishes the truth"

in this case, even in publishing the truth, mike is working hard as hell to spin it into something else. the common spew here is that the riaas 18,000 lawsuits resulted in a couple of court cases and everything else was dropped. yet, the truth is that there were many settlements, and in fact only a few cases had to be taken to court. the truth is that most people paid the settlement rather than go to court and find out that the lost anyway. a few foolhardy souls have tried, and they have all lost, with only the amount of the judgement coming into discussion.

the point is the riaas stuff worked on a very small scale, and now someone else is taking what the riaa took years to do and is now doing it effectively in a short period of time. can you imagine the public’s change of heart if hundreds of thousands of people were getting hit each month with threats of legal action? there might be a few wingnuts like you find on techdirt hating on the riaa, but mostly people would come to understand that the free lunch is over. piracy only needs a small shift to the negative on unacceptable side to lose its scale and have the process become less viable. less peers = less sources for content.

so even in posting ‘the truth’ mike casually dismisses it as unimportant. yet, if this was a trend in the other direction, he would be all over it like the next coming of christ (or whoever it is he worships).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: "Techdirt never publishes the truth"

let me add this:

http://techdirt.com/articles/20100603/1654119681.shtml

“Because One Paywall Sorta Worked Very Briefly Many Years Ago, Free Is A Joke”.

yet, in this story:

http://techdirt.com/articles/20100604/0954389689.shtml

“Others in the comments quickly pointed to Penny Arcade and XKCD — both of which have been huge success stories.”

yet, these are two exceptions in a sea of failures and forgotten websites that stopped updating years ago. can you smell the spin? in one case, its an exceptional hiccup, and in the other its the start of an amazing trend. Hmmm. getting dizzy yet?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: "Techdirt never publishes the truth"

“but mostly people would come to understand that the free lunch is over.”

Yes, that’s why the practice has lead to so much backlash that various politicians and governmental bodies are starting to condemn the action. But I suppose your psychic powers posses more credibility than hard evidence.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Dilbert

Everyone seems to lend the opposing viewpoint near-absolute credibility without any evidence, why start requiring evidence when you don’t like the proposed conclusion?

I haven’t come to any conclusion one way or another.

However, if people accept “people share more files now” as evidence that it didn’t work, then “people buy more from iTunes now” should be evidence that it did work.

I don’t think either of those absolute numbers are terribly informative.

Anonymous Coward says:

Why I love the RIAA...

The RIAA lawsuits were successful in getting me to stop using P2P software – because I know my ISP will just roll over. Now I swap hundreds of GBs, even as much as a TB at a time via sneakernet. Its super easy to find folks willing to swap disks for a while. Now I have way more music than I ever would have downloaded via P2P. Little more coordination, way more pay off. Thanks RIAA, I would not have pursued sneakernet and all the wonderfulness that comes with it without you.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Why I love the RIAA...

There are ways to distribute content more rapidly. You can create secret encrypted wireless networks that can’t be distinguished from CMBR to anyone who doesn’t know the decryption code. A hacked wireless N router should be able to do the trick, or perhaps it might need a bit of modification to make it able to transmit signals via the necessary frequencies, but that shouldn’t be too difficult to accomplish.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Why I love the RIAA...

See, what people need to know is that background noise is a natural occurrence, there is noise everywhere. and a well encrypted message looks random, it is indistinguishable from noise. If you correctly mimicked background noise you can distribute signals using frequencies that will travel further distances than what the FCC will permit and nobody who doesn’t know the decryption code will be able to decipher it from normal background noise that they naturally encounter everywhere. Buildings can aim directional antennas at each other and communicate across further distances creating a sneakernet of computers and communication. Now, there is always the threat that if the feds discovered a code from one person (ie: someone leaked it to the feds) in the network they can use it to track others because, with the code, they can now decipher noise from signal and see where the signal gets stronger and/or triangulate it. But it will be a cat and mouse game and, just like the drug war, it will be largely ineffective. Two friends can predetermine a code and communicate along longer distances than what the FCC permits, and more trusted people can enter the network, etc…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Why I love the RIAA...

Who said anything about worldwide distribution? Not looking for world domination. Once I have a hard disk in hand I can copy from that disk super fast. Not looking to replace the internet with sneakernet. Just moved my music replication offline. The RIAA can harass my ISP as much as they want, they can snoop whatever traffic they want, they still won’t find me. I’ve completely changed the attack surface. Good Luck to the RIAA when they try to stop sneakernet. There are lots and lots and lots and lots of ways to still be online and not be obvious but that still leaves an online attack surface, going offline changes the game completely. And like I said, I now get way more than I ever would have with any online solution.

nebelhund (profile) says:

I found out recently that one of my co-workers was the lead (Jane Doe as it were) defendant in the Boston University lawsuits of a few years ago. A number of other students piggybacked on with her case, which they won. RIAA did not get their personal information. I say victory as the RIAA could have appealed the ruling but failed to do so.

Joel Tenenbaum, another BU student, didn’t join their case and he was the one that got hit with the $675,000 fine.

It was pretty cool to have been reading all about this the past few years and then find out I know one of the leads in the cases I was reading about.

Rosedale (profile) says:

I haven't bought from the Major labels.

With precious few examples, and I do mean precious few I haven’t bought anything from the major labels since they started suing people. As soon as I learned what they started to do I ditched them. I didn’t really like the music anyway and there so much more out there.

Success is keeping your fan base happy…and that doesn’t happen by suing your fan base.

JackSombra (profile) says:

It was a success if their objective was to earn some short term profits and instil in Joe public some uncertainty and fear
Unfortunately (from them) the fear and uncertainty was quickly overridden by downloader’s appetite for “free stuff”
If their objective was to stop downloading they would have had to bring all 18,000 to court (making sure press were there), but then that would have cost them a lot of money
So looking at it from the profit perspective, yet it was a success, the stopping piracy angle though was a total failure
But on the other hand, the whole thing was pretty damning for the legal system that was basically turned into the equivalent of a protection racket’s muscle, “pay up or you will wish you had after the boys drop you a few time”. If I was lawyer/judge who had some actual respect/love for the law I would be pretty pissed, but these day’s outside of law school those types seem few and far between

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Music Industry Music Industry by Mike Masnick Mon, Jun 7th 2010 11:15am Share This Filed Under: lawsuits, riaa, success Companies: riaa Permalink. Defining Success: Were The RIAA's Lawsuits A Success Or Not?

No one is saying the current system is not flawed.

Democracy moves slow.

“The Internet of Civilian Broadband Age” is is barely a dozen years old.

How many people had enough bandwidth ten years ago
to be a Pirate ?

a few hundred thousand maybe ,,

Today ,,, how many ?

hundreds of millions ,,

and soon ten years from now

ONE billion ,( if not two or three )

human beings will have 4G at

their fingertips,

There are gonna be to many Pirates

unless we stop them now !

The Governments of the USA and elsewhere, got a lot ofwork

to do in “IP law stuff” , from local to global,,

to bring the laws up to speed.

Now this is GOVERNMENT we are talking about.

And I can tell you as someone who work and lived in politics

for a long time ,

that GOVERNMENT SUCKs !!

They are going to get it wrong alot.

Sometimes Gov”T blows it big time.

(Glad i did not have a home w/mortgage too loose,. I rent.)

What saves us , are the “Principles.”

Crime is wrong.

Define crime,, What is what is not.

Murder & theft is easy,

But when dealing with copyright laws

in the “global digital age”,

it is going to take time to get it right.

But the laws will get stronger to better protect Artists and

Writers and etc, in the future,

That is the principle that saves us. It is embedded in the

U.S. Constitution.

It is in the Federalist papers

John Locke to Ayn Rand write about
the moral importance of IP
and copyright protection
as part of a moral society,

Find ONE major , well studied , political philosopher who says

“ABOLISH COPYRIGHT LAWS”.

there is none !!

Zilch ,

nadda ,

Zero.

The Laws are going to, and

constitutionally have have to,

change for the better to strengthen Copyrights..

If we do not do well in Congress

in getting good laws for Artist written .

We got the Courts sown up.

The copyright clause of the Constitution is all we need.

[If you doubt that Mike , interview 3 or 4 Copyright law proffs]

In the “game of court and law “

it is easy VICTORY for

“the ARTIST”

over “the PIRATES.”

It won’t even go to extra inngs

Get used to it.

IP law stuff , is just too big of a GIANT

bedrock of American Legal Principle,

AND short of armed revolt by Pirates,

just ain’t gonna change.

(Patents I do not know about well enough to jam there. )

—–

Copyright law come from governments.

Democracy is slower sometimes than

the changes,

NEEDE,,

because of “checks” and “balances”

“of power” in

our USA

gov’t.

( Do not tell me you did not learn that in 6th or even 3rd grade social studies , Check any state regents exam,, it is there. )

Things will take some time.

But Artist & co will defeat Pirates to all reason possible.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Music Industry Music Industry by Mike Masnick Mon, Jun 7th 2010 11:15am Share This Filed Under: lawsuits, riaa, success Companies: riaa Permalink. Defining Success: Were The RIAA's Lawsuits A Success Or Not?

Learn proper writing
skills and maybe some of us
could understand you.

Otherwise, take up
poetry, and learn Haiku.
It seems to suit you.

Dave (profile) says:

Re: Music Industry blah blah blah

The problem is the industry thinks that it can change the minds of the populous – what is the norm for a society can not be regarded as wrong – what is the norm for an entire species – can not be regarded as wrong – if we are looking at maybe billions of pirates – the vast majority of online users, then that is the norm.

It is the industry who have not realised that they can not and will never make money buy selling online, using the same methodology as they do offline.

Making money for the distributors, producers, managers, and lawyers is not money that gets handed down to the artists, and it is not benefiting those who purchase from their local stores.

Creating new stricter laws will not stop a society from the direction it wants, all Governments eventually fall when they try to force a society to do something so fundamentally different to their wishes.

Its not the Government, nor the Publishing houses, nor two-bit scam companies who feign to the courts that their investigations into pirates is legally accurate that will stop people pirating – it is a fundamental shift in perception of what piracy is.

Is it people refusing to be bound by unreasonable and probably unjust license agreements, or those forcing people to adhere to such excessive licenses?

Is the multi-national corporation the victims, or the pirates, taking the lions share of all money which rightly belongs to the artists? Forcing you to not move your downloaded song from the Apple device it is on, even after it fails to work? Or is it the people who rise up and say no more, we will not be victims of extortion and corporate greed? Who knows, but one thing is for sure…

Piracy has been a part of human existence since the beginning of humans – even before the internet was ever conceived… it is not going to go away, so accepting it is the only way to sleep at night – there are plenty of acceptable ways to earn revenue from allowing people to download freely from a particular site.

Imagine, how many pirates would be stealing from the internet, if they were legally allowed to get the file if and only if they went to website X? Website X, generated revenue from advertising, not just for themselves but for the production houses and artists as well! It would not be too surprising to see artists moving away from the big publishing houses and selling online directly – getting all the profits… but then the big publishers wouldn’t like that would they, probably prefer to force people to rebel against their Stalinist control over individual’s lives.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: "what is the norm for a society can not be regarded as wrong" - Music Industry blah blah blah

“what is the norm for a society can not be regarded as wrong”

VERY VERY WRONG. The Nazis were an elected majority.

THE U.S. Constitution is designed to protect the MINORITY for the tyranny of the MAJORITY.

That is 3rd grade Social studies everywhere in the USA –

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Music Industry Music Industry by Mike Masnick Mon, Jun 7th 2010 11:15am Share This Filed Under: lawsuits, riaa, success Companies: riaa Permalink. Defining Success: Were The RIAA's Lawsuits A Success Or Not?

You ignore everything to rant on nothing. Try again.

If your are old enough, you should know that file sharing started with Napster. Before that, it was tapes. Before tapes, 8-tracks. All which the industry made money on. It can make money on filesharing if it would stop trying to turn the world into criminals and embrace newer lines of thinking. Sadly, this (which I’m going to edit):

Find ONE major , well studied , political philosopher who says “ABOLISH COPYRIGHT LAWS”. There is none!

Zilch.
nadda.
Zero.
———————————————
Actually, there is. I’ll refer you to the lawyer/copyleftist Lawrence Lessig who is now speaking out against Congress for the corruption put forth. Even then, there have been major decrees about copyright laws becoming far more draconian in a world that doesn’t need LAW trying to force them to do something that goes against human nature.

But that’s up to you to decide. Right now, I believe our current look at the absurdity of copyrighting EVERYTHING is dragging your argument down far more than I have time to explain.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: RE:" I'll refer you to the lawyer/copyleftist Lawrence Lessig"

RE:” I’ll refer you to the lawyer/copyleftist Lawrence Lessig”

ME ::
An excerpt from my 2002 study “Techno-politics: The Internet and Political Activism”

http://technopolitical.blogspot.com/2002/09/techno-politics.html#_edn38

ME [2002]: “There are also those who assert that Democracy will loose out —and is loosing out— to the Globalization of the Government and Corporate Techno-Powers.[37] Seeing the distribution of academic and political information, news and views on the Web as dominated by a few mega-corporations[38] some believe the question political-science students will be asked on exams is: “Why and how has the Internet changed democracy for the worst?”
—–
notes:

[36] The issues of Techno-Politics, Electronic-Government and Cyber-Politics are as diverse as the countries they occur in. Each government and people on this planet use the Internet for political means. As the laws of government differ from country to country, the sphere of Techno-Cyber-Politics is unique to each. Please do bear in mind that how Americans use the Internet is by no means a clear indicator of how the Internet is being use politically in other Democracies and Dictatorships.

[37] Clarke, Roger: Freedom of Information? The Internet as Harbinger of the New Dark Ages

http://www.FirstMonday.org: Peer-Reviewed Journal of the Internet,

volume 4, number 11 (November 1999),
Available @ http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_11/clarke/index.html

Last accessed June 25 2002

A quote from the article:

“ There’s a common presumption that the Internet has brought with it the promise of openness, democracy, the end of inequities in the distribution of information, and human self-fulfillment. Any such conclusion would be premature. The digital era has amused and beguiled us all. Its first-order impacts are being assimilated, but its second-order implications are not. Powerful institutions perceive their interests to be severely threatened by the last decade of technological change and by the shape of the emergent ‘information economy’. Elements of their fight back are identified, particularly extensions to legal protectionism, and the active development and application of technologies that protect data from prying eyes. Many of the features that have ensured a progressive balance between data protection and freedom of access to data have already been seriously eroded. The new balance that emerges from the current period of turmoil may be far less friendly to public access and more like a New Dark Ages.”

[38] Jesdanun, Anick . ASSOCIATED PRESS: BOOK REVIEW, +++++“The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World,” by Lawrence Lessig,++++++ (Published by Random House.) The next threat to the Internet : Legal scholar warns of challenges to innovation. January 8, 2002.

[Accessed Jan 7 2002 @ http://www.msnbc.com/news/681181.asp?0na=x2236140- Link inactive].

Last Accessed August 19, 2002 @ http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/tue/computers/news_1u8lessig.html

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: RE:" I'll refer you to the lawyer/copyleftist Lawrence Lessig"

Whhops the bottom of note [38] got cut .

Here is the full footnote:

[38] Jesdanun, Anick . ASSOCIATED PRESS: BOOK REVIEW, ++ “The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World,” by Lawrence Lessig,++ (Published by Random House.) The next threat to the Internet : Legal scholar warns of challenges to innovation. January 8, 2002.

[Accessed Jan 7 2002 @ http://www.msnbc.com/news/681181.asp?0na=x2236140- Link inactive].

Last Accessed August 19, 2002 @ http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/tue/computers/news_1u8lessig.html

”In his new book, Lawrence Lessig warns of threats to innovation as the Internet becomes increasingly controlled by businesses, the technology they develop and the laws they push. In his 1999 book, “Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace,” Lessig warns of threats to free speech and privacy as the Internet becomes increasingly controlled by businesses, the technology they develop and the laws they push. “The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World,” published by Random House, is in many respects a sequel: Lessig argues that innovation is under threat by those same efforts. One tendency Lessig worries about is the development of software techniques that would let Internet service providers prioritize — and perhaps charge more for — certain traffic over others.”

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: that doesn't need LAW trying to force them to do something that goes against human nature.

“that doesn’t need LAW trying to force them to do something that goes against human nature.”

1] Outlawing Rape goes against human nature , Many Men , find rape laws oppressive– even if it be just 10-20 %, that is too many. Even if it be 5 % ,, even 1%, still too many men find rape laws an oppression that goes against human nature. Date rape is STILL a big problem on any co-ed college campus. Vikings used to Rape and Pillage, w/o moral qualms. Today when the there is war , most anywhere when and /or where the local law breaks down ,, men rape with impunity.

2] I am sure you know a lot of folks who shoplifted their way through high school and college, Many think if it is less that say,, $10 in worth , and the store is a big billion $$ Wal-Mart ,, shoplifting is harmless,. So they do it .

3} You folks claim laws against Piracy is something “that goes against human nature.” The majority of humans are not Pirates. In democracies people have elected governments that have outlawed piracy.

4] Laws are designed and governments formed:
to protect the “majority of peaceful people” from the criminal “minority of people” who claim that the laws , of Rape , Shoplifting and Piracy go “against human nature.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Look! I made the longest nonsensical post ever!

Interesting to say the least TP.

Democracy moves slow? Show me the democracy in intellectual property law! If there was actually a “democracy” involved then tell me how you voted on something like the DMCA?

Simply put, we are not a democracy and democracy has no bearing on IP. If it did IP would not exist they way we know because it benefits the minority.

When you have to carefully define a crime for years the obvious is knocking on your door. It probably isn’t a crime if you still have a hard time deciding on it and how to enforce it. The Internet is NOT new nor is file sharing. How long do IP worshipers have to convince us that sharing is suddenly wrong and illegal?

Your appeal to authority in regards to pointing out one mainstream political scientist who is against IP is underwhelming to say the least.

There are many political scientists that are dubious of IP for good reason. Historically many will point out how the US ignored IP for most part until after WWII. We embraced IP only after we were on top so to speak.

Asia’s economic success is related to ignoring notions of IP
for the last several decades. So it seems IP is not the panacea for all. A great way of saying this IMHO is young people innovate/create and old people litigate/negate. This is the essence of IP rights and law.

Your calls for protecting the artists is a smokescreen or another way to put it is complete bullcrap. Just like politicians want to “protect” the children IP lovers want to protect the artists.

The truth is they could give a crap about the artist and view them with disdain once the have appropriated their art as they see fit. One only has to look at how many artists have been screwed by the records labels to see how artistic production is stolen and then locked up and kept away from those who created it.

I am ashamed you would support this scam against artists and creators and then turn to us and say you are somehow “protecting” them by being a IP lap dog.

I could just flush you down the toilet right now TP.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Show me the democracy in intellectual property law!

…..

[We all know ]the fact that America is not a pure Democracy. The American citizen body has no formal constitutional role in the formation of federal law and policy. Rather the United States of America is a Democratic Republic, where the American body politic elects our legislatures and executives to enact laws and make national policy decisions in a slow (and hopefully) deliberative fashion. [116]

Unlike several European countries —(This past March 2002 in Switzerland for example, voters approved a national referendum to join the United Nations.[117])—- there is no process for direct voter involvement beyond the election of public officials on the national level. On the state and local level, however, there does exist initiative and referendum (I & R), with 27 states having such provision.[118]

I & R takes on several forms with each state determining its particulars of procedure, but they can be broken down into the following basic categories: [119]
——————————-

See footnotes @

http://technopolitical.blogspot.com/2002/09/techno-politics.html#_ednref118
————————————-
Copyright “Technopolitical” August 2003

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Music Industry Music Industry by Mike Masnick Mon, Jun 7th 2010 11:15am Share This Filed Under: lawsuits, riaa, success Companies: riaa Permalink. Defining Success: Were The RIAA's Lawsuits A Success Or Not?

How many people had enough bandwidth ten years ago to be a Pirate ? a few hundred thousand maybe ,,

Um, ten years ago was the hight of the Napster era. In February 2001, Napster had over 26 million users.

To get a sense of the current number of users, read this Wikipedia article. In many countries, people who share infringing content are in the majority.

The total number of people on the planet who infringe on copyright, is likely over a billion right now. No way to know for sure, of course.

These lawsuits did absolutely nothing to slow down that trend. Nor will any lawsuits in the future. That’s because people want to share; it’s natural. Copyright is against sharing, so it will lose.

Find ONE major , well studied , political philosopher who says “ABOLISH COPYRIGHT LAWS”.

Well, since copyright didn’t exist anywhere in the world until after the Statute of Anne, any philosopher who died before 1709 would have nothing to talk about.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t guess what they’d say. The first “pirate” philosopher was probably Socrates. At the time, the Sophists were charging high fees to teach ideas; Socrates shared those ideas for free. (For example, the “Socratic method” may have actually been conceived by Protagoras, a Sophist.)

Closer to modern times, David Hume believed scarcity was a precondition for being property:

“We see, even in the present necessitous condition of mankind, that, wherever any benefit is bestowed by nature in an unlimited abundance, we leave it always in common among the whole human race, and make no subdivisions of right and property.”
– Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals

Many political writers were against copyright:

“The regions of thought, like those of the air, are the common property of all earth’s creatures.”
– William Leggett, Democratick Editorials: Essays in Jacksonian Political Economy

“I particularly desire to express my heartfelt gratitude to the translators and participators in your work who, in generous compliance with my objection to copyright of any kind, thus help to render your English version of my writings absolutely free to all who may wish to make use of it.”
– Leo Tolstoy, letter to the Free Age Press

For modern philosophical opposition to intellectual property, see:
Tom G. Palmer, “Are Patents And Copyrights Morally Justified?”
Julio H. Cole, “Patents And Copyrights:
Do The Benefits Exceed The Costs?”

Joost Smiers, “Abandoning Copyright: A Blessing for Artists, Art, and Society”
Wendy McElroy, “Contra Copyright”
N. Stephan Kinsella, “Against Intellectual Property”

Other philosophers include Murray Rothbard, Benjamin Tucker, and F.A. Hayek.

The Kinsella paper is an especially good overview of the three types of thinking on copyright (utilitarian, rights-based, and against). It also describes Andrew Galambos, the most ardent IP maximalist I’ve ever heard of. I think you’d like him:

Galambos reportedly took his own ideas to ridiculous lengths, claiming a property right in his own ideas and requiring his students not to repeat them; dropping a nickel in a fund box every time he used the word “liberty,” as a royalty to the descendants of Thomas Paine, the alleged “inventor” of the word “liberty”; and changing his original name from Joseph Andrew Galambos (Jr., presumably) to Andrew Joseph Galambos, to avoid infringing his identically-named father’s rights to the name.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Music Industry Music Industry by Mike Masnick Mon, Jun 7th 2010 11:15am Share This Filed Under: lawsuits, riaa, success Companies: riaa Permalink. Defining Success: Were The RIAA's Lawsuits A Success Or Not?

Karl , again , your taking very tiny slivers , of philosophers , who are not taken seriously by the VAST majority of their academic peers, and who write write with an agenda , as opposed to seeking truth — your are taking the the “tiny sliver of philosophers” and amplifying there academic writings, buy claiming they are legitimately accepted. They are not . Not by Laws and not by Courts. Not by the Majority of people.
———————————–

I used napster in 2001. It blew out the soundcard on my old 64MB PC. In 2001 ,, while there were many ,, you say 26 million nampster users worldwide,, most folks had niether the bandwith or harddrive space to be gig time pirates. Now most anyone has both the bandwith and hard drive,, and it is going to grow,
———–

YOU :
The first “pirate” philosopher was probably Socrates. At the time, the Sophists were charging high fees to teach ideas; Socrates shared those ideas for free. (For example, the “Socratic method” may have actually been conceived by Protagoras, a Sophist.).

Karl, again, take a philosophy course at any college. Put your sentence at the core or a paper any exam answer. You will fail . You cannot copyright “IDEAS” ( we have been through this Karl with T.J.’s letters and writings).

Karl , you are the most only the only one here , who attempts. to answer my posts , on the viewspoints that highlight and present VAST ACADEMIC MAJORITY VIEW through out human human

. You, Karl , always cite discounted philosophic theories,, that , while nice academically for fueling discussion,, are always rejected by society as a whole..

To say that: “The first “pirate” philosopher was probably Socrates. At the time, the Sophists were charging high fees to teach ideas; Socrates shared those ideas for free. “,, is such a “convoluted -pirate-pretzel-logic” , it would get you laughed out of any philosophy class.

Here is how the proff would mark it :

YOU : The first “pirate” philosopher was probably Socrates. At the time, the Sophists were charging high fees to teach ideas.

PROFF : “You cannot copyright IDEAS KARL “

YOU : Socrates shared those ideas for free.

PROFF : “Teaching for free , does not violate copyright principle. A lot of people teach guitar for free. It is neither immoral or illegal , and Eric Clapton does not mind. Artist and philosophers always exchange ideas freely, That is why to ‘exchange ideas freely is an idiom of language. Karl please drop this course before the mid-term , or you will fail , unless you wake up to reality. “

——-

Out of curiosity Karl, what is you college degree in ?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Learn proper writing skills and maybe some of us could understand you. Otherwise, take up poetry, and learn Haiku. It seems to suit you.

“There once was a law from way back when,
not too far back as it did not exist yet,
that seemed to work when content was scarce,
and delivered by oxen pulling carts then,
all of a sudden, quite quick, came Internet,
that went and turned a law into a farce.” – The Pirate Poet

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Learn proper writing skills and maybe some of us could understand you. Otherwise, take up poetry, and learn Haiku. It seems to suit you.quite quick, came Internet, that went and turned a law into a farce." - The Pirate Poet

It is only a Poem

But poems do spurn Ideas.

Some Good . Some Bad.

The future will tell.

The answer is blowing in the winds of cyberspace.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Learn proper writing skills and maybe some of us could understand you. Otherwise, take up poetry, and learn Haiku. It seems to suit you.quite quick, came Internet, that went and turned a law into a farce." - The Pirate Poet

Copyright is still a farce in the age of supercopying machines that fit in our pockets.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Copyright is still a farce in the age of supercopying machines that fit in our pockets.

That is your best comeback to my points ?

Yawn, I never even have to break a sweat here at techdirt.

There is never any real challenge to debating you Pirates,, as your views are morally unsupportable, and the laws of Nations all against you.

Piracy will never die.

Just as War Crimes , Rape , and Robbery , will never die.

But we fight on. We fight on to reduce “War Crimes , Rape , and Robbery” and Piracy,

and to confine , The War Criminals , Rapists , Robbers , and Pirates in Jails.

Philosophize all you want . But unless your philosophies against Piracy translate into real world law and gov’t policy, you will got to jail for Piracy.

As example : Many people Philosophize against the income tax, as it is not directly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.
They are laughed out of court, forced to pay back taxes and often thrown in Jail.

BUT many Philosophize against war , and refuse to serve in the army , based on “conscientious objector status”.

It is OK , it is encoded into law, and legiment “conscientious objectors” ( not just cowards) , do NOT HAVE to serve in the army.

If you refuse to kill under any circumstance ,, even self defense , and can prove your beliefs as genuine to the courts , you do not have to serve.
————–
OK , Pirates , next time you get arrested or sued,, try your moral augments for piracy in Courts of law.

Watch the Judges laugh.
————————-
++++++++++++++++++

=================

Question says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Copyright is still a farce in the age of supercopying machines that fit in our pockets.

Where is the harm?
Please provide a sample of the top earnings in all medias from 2000~2010 and show us that tremendous effect it had on the life of those top earners everywhere.

There is no harm is there?
It is a fabrication or can you provide the numbers, because with robbery people can see what was stolen, people miss things, with rape people are touched physically and harmed, with war people die in front of others, now with piracy it is bad because you said so? Where are those bad things?

People don’t see it, people can’t measure it but still is bad and contrary to all logic and good sense you are asking people to blindly accept it is bad because you think it is?

You must be and idiot paid to spout that nonsense everywhere, what other explanation is there?

You remind me of that Iraq guy on television saying “Americans are not here, what they are saying is a lie”(American tanks rolls behind him).

“Piracy is bad, is evil, is harming artists”(Record artist earnings rolling behind him)

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Where is the harm? Copyright is still a farce in the age of supercopying machines that fit in our pockets.

“Where is the harm?”

As I have stated countless times here , that “the harm” is infringement of ARTISTS control over their ART. the Courts and Laws agree to that point fully

It is never really about $$

But ARTIST CONTROL of their personally created Art..

It you cannot understand that ,, you are lost.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Where is the harm? Copyright is still a farce in the age of supercopying machines that fit in our pockets.

and I want control over hamburger sales. If I do not get control over it I am harmed. It’s not just about money, it’s about control. If you do not understand that, you are lost.

and IP laws aren’t really for the artists, they’re mostly for the record labels. They’re mostly the ones who lobby for them. and yes, this is about control, it’s about their ability to unjustly control others and scam both artists and the public.

Any Mouse says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Copyright is still a farce in the age of supercopying machines that fit in our pockets.

I’m not a pirate, I’m a ‘copyright infringer.’ I’ve never even been on a ship on the sea/ocean! Sheesh. You people and your melodramatic name-calling.

Or should we start calling you all Rapists? That’s what your extortion is, a raping of our financial and legal systems.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Copyright is still a farce in the age of supercopying machines that fit in our pockets.

“Many people Philosophize against the income tax”

Most people understand that there is a legitimate need to have a limited government. Now granted, our government has gotten out of control over the years (ie: with ridiculous IP laws) but most people do not feel that IP laws are as necessary as some form of limited government to fund important things (like education, public roads, cops that go after violent criminals, etc…).

Darryl says:

Must suck having to be honest and law abiding.

“”carefully crafted legal action that has produced results.””

Thats is absolutely true, im 100% sure it was done with care, and 100% sure it was ‘crafted’, and 100% sure (and you are) that it producted results.

Ofcourse it has an effect on the downloading community, those who have got a legal notice, will certainly think twice before doing it again, and those who hear or read about those people paying fines, will think may be it’s better to not steal it.

Mike, what is youre solution ? you claim what they are doing is not working, and then you report on how it IS working (most people pay up, and I assume stop stealing).

So you argument, is if it’s not working perfectly, then just give up, and change the law ?

Again, with the bank robbers, so if there were many many bank robbers, you consider that it would be just better to let them rob banks ? and not try to catch and convict them ?

RIAA putting off staff, as an indication of lack of success, Well, I put it to you that putting off staff in an indicator of an improvement in the situation, meaning less staff are required for policing. because of LESS file sharing.

So if you received a go to court letter, Mike, would you just ignore it, and run to youre computer and keep downloading ?

Or would you think twice about it, and consider it’s against the law, and it’s quite possible the law will come after you ?

If I received a letter telling me I was file sharing, when I was not and asking me to pay, I would fight it all the way, and let them take me to court. And I would win.

The fact virtually NO ONE does that in a country FULL of lawyers indicates only ONE THING,,, guilt..

Innocent people, do not yeld to law suits against them that are wrong. We’ll most people, how about you?

the fact that most pay, means they consider themselves guilty, the fact that so many settle out of court, means also they know their guilt and want to cut a deal.

The truly innocent, would fight it on principle, or if they think they have a strong case, why not class action defense?
But they dont, they pay, do the crime, do the time.

Most people find it trivial to abey the laws, thats why most people do not have records. And most people understand, for good or bad, the existing laws are laws to allow humans to get along to some degree of sanity.

The law is there to stop you doing things against the majority of the peoples wishes, society does not want you to take what is not yours, to unfairly profit from someone elses labour, NOT FORCE PEOPLE TO WORK FOR FREE.
Not to kill people, or endanger life and so on.

They are all laws to help us live fairly as humans, and as a society.

The system actually, for the most part works, we dont have NOT enough laws, and we dont have too many laws, (allthough some may disagree).

And we dont have many laws that everyone things is unnessary or stupid.

If the people do not like specific laws, or the way society is run, they elect new representives in government, they elect people who agree with their idea’s, and who will influence the changing of the laws.

But it’s not that clear cut, you cant just get a majority and make any laws you like, there are natural laws, and country laws, and internation laws and agreements.

These allows countries, and people within those countries to have some common legal framework for ALL humans.

And if you dont like the structure and legal framework, and protections that affords you, you are more than free to move to a country that has less laws (lawless), or more laws that might be more to youre licking.

I hear North Korea is nice this time of year !

They have a different legal, and social system it might be more to you liking, or Hong Kong, or the middle east where you might have you’re hand cut off for file sharing (theft).

Would you be happy to settle out of court, by losing just ONE hand? or pay a fine ?

I think in general the western work has balanced, and well thought out and mature laws governing society. It requires people to not do things others dont want them to, or not to take things that are not theirs, or against the rightfull owners wishes.

It’s a social right to be able to create a work of art, movie, song, book, invention and take advantage of that work. And to make a living, and income from that, especially if you’re work has money value.

You have every right to have that money value, if you did the work. Just as the law says you have every right to walk the street without being mugged.

The most important point missed by many here, is this concept of “youre not taking away anything physical” therefore it’s not theft.
It is theft, because the rightfull owner does not want you to have it, without fairly purchasing it, after all if he wants to eat to be able to product more, there has to be some incentive.

But the important thing, is this:

YOU DO NOT GET TO DECIDE ON THE VALUE OF A PRODUCT, how many products or items, or paintings or anything for that matter where you get to determine the sales price?

None,
To those saying, “it has no value” well it’s not youre call, you dont get to say the value of something, assume the value is zero and therefore you can have it for no cost.

The value of something is the price or value the rightfull owner of that thing determines it to be.
The owner might not want to sell it at all, therefore it’s value to him is infinate, no amount of money is enough.
Or the value may be something less, the rights owner sets a price, the purchaser agrees to that price and a purchase is made.

Very rarly, if at all does the consumer get to determine 100% of the worth of the product. So you cant legally say, “i determine my downloaded file of a 100 million dollar movie to be of zero value, therefore it’s not theft”.

You dont get to make that determination, by law, and by social ethics. Sorry. thats life,,, deal with it.
And welcome to the real world.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Must suck having to be honest and law abiding.

“So you argument, is if it’s not working perfectly, then just give up, and change the law ?” – Yes

This bit of reasoning is the best part of your post!

The rest of your post was a rant that was somewhere between brain death and lobotomy. Please do some more reading on the subject and try again. Great passion with zero critical thinking = fail

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Must suck having to be honest and law abiding.

The reason why we should give up IP laws, or seek to correct them, is partly because there is nothing wrong with infringement. People inherently understand this, even the founding fathers understood this and were very skeptical of IP and wanted it to exist only to the extent that it promoted the progress. But the fact is that it doesn’t promote the progress, it promotes extortion, and so reasonable arguments can be made to destroy it (or at least fix our current laws).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Must suck having to be honest and law abiding.

“There’s no other reason to do so if you do not minimise or remove file sharing.”

I disagree. From a young age people are taught not to copy of their neighbors’ papers.

I think commenters on Techdirt think that everyone is like them, or that the majority of people think IP laws are terrible, but I think it is a misconception.

“But the fact is that it doesn’t promote the progress, it promotes extortion, and so reasonable arguments can be made to destroy it (or at least fix our current laws).”

Well, we don’t agree on everything, but I agree most IP laws could be modified for the better.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Must suck having to be honest and law abiding.

“From a young age people are taught not to copy of their neighbors’ papers.”

People are taught not to plagiarize, that is, pretend like someone else’s paper is their own. But that’s hardly the same thing and just because people are taught something from a young age doesn’t make it any more right.

“I think commenters on Techdirt think that everyone is like them, or that the majority of people think IP laws are terrible, but I think it is a misconception.”

It is not a misconception, the majority of the world’s population do not agree with IP laws. Most cultures do not agree, much of the problem pharmaceutical corporations encounter is the fact that other cultures do not agree with IP laws on medicine and traditionally have not. Pharmaceutical corporations try to go into other countries with diverse and different plants to study them but their cultures have traditionally not approved of IP and didn’t want the results of the studies to become patented. There is plenty of research and whatnot detailing this in universities even. It’s not a misconception, it’s reality.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 The reason why we should give up IP laws, or seek to correct them, is partly because there is nothing wrong with infringement.

“The reason why we should give up IP laws, or seek to correct them, is partly because there is nothing wrong with infringement………………….”

If you believe that,

this is why we have laws . courts, Judges and jurists,, to prove you wrong on ALL points.
————

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 The reason why we should give up IP laws, or seek to correct them, is partly because there is nothing wrong with infringement.

because laws, courts, judges, jurists, etc… are the ultimate authority of right and wrong.

Seriously, why don’t you try to apply good logic and not just nonsense to what you say.

Any Mouse says:

Re: Re: Re:3 The reason why we should give up IP laws, or seek to correct them, is partly because there is nothing wrong with infringement.

Just because we have a law against it does not mean it is wrong. Only illegal. Bad laws need to be removed, but hardly ever is a law taken off the books.

You need to make your points more clear, and not use the ‘it’s illegal so you’re wrong’ pile of drek.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 The reason why we should give up IP laws, or seek to correct them, is partly because there is nothing wrong with infringement.

“and not use the ‘it’s illegal so you’re wrong’ pile of drek.”

Anyone who defines law as the ultimate authority of morality and tries to defend a position based on existing law knows that their position is morally bankrupt.

So, let me ask you TP, if IP laws didn’t exist, would you say that copying the content of others without their permission is immoral?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Must suck having to be honest and law abiding.

Don’t be dense, I know of no disagreement over what current murder law states. Unlike murder it seems that copyright is a little more gray?

And what is wrong with giving up and coming up with something new. Are we bound by archaic laws that makes no sense forever?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Must suck having to be honest and law abiding.

“know of no disagreement over what current murder law states”

You not knowing =/= it doesn’t exist.

My only point is that the prior statement (paraphrase: if the law doesn’t work perfectly, get rid of it) is a bad priniciple.

I have no problem with modifying laws for the better.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Must suck having to be honest and law abiding.

“My only point is that the prior statement (paraphrase: if the law doesn’t work perfectly, get rid of it) is a bad priniciple.”

That is a strawman. The correct argument is, if it’s a bad law get rid of it. The argument is that IP laws are bad laws, get rid of them (or fix them and turn them into good laws).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Must suck having to be honest and law abiding.

“That is a strawman.”

It’s not a strawman. It’s what the earlier commenter wrote.

“The correct argument is, if it’s a bad law get rid of it.”

That’s not what the prior commenter wrote.

Nevertheless, I think “if it’s a bad law, modify it,” is a better prinicple than “if it’s a bad law, get rid of it.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Must suck having to be honest and law abiding.

“Modifying” is inclusive of “negating,” but does not require it. I wouldn’t want to get rid of copyright law, but I would like to modify it in several ways (e.g., make fair use explicitly applicable to circumvention of copy protection mechanisms, shorten the term of copyrights, a few other things).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Must suck having to be honest and law abiding.

“Ofcourse it has an effect on the downloading community, those who have got a legal notice, will certainly think twice before doing it again, and those who hear or read about those people paying fines, will think may be it’s better to not steal it.”

A: it’s not stealing and you know it (so stop being dishonest).

B: Wow, you have the ability to read other peoples mind and tell what others will think? Amazing. Perhaps you should join up with Ms Cleo and start a psychic hotline or something.

“Again, with the bank robbers, so if there were many many bank robbers, you consider that it would be just better to let them rob banks ? and not try to catch and convict them ?”

Comparing file sharers to bank robbers is disingenuous at best.

“meaning less staff are required for policing. because of LESS file sharing.”

Silly me, you’re intentionally being retarded and saying things that you, and everyone, know are false. Why do I even bother?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Must suck having to be honest and law abiding.

“The value of something is the price or value the rightfull owner of that thing determines it to be.”

The value of something varies from person to person, different people place different values on the same thing. One mans trash is another mans treasure.

“So you argument, is if it’s not working perfectly, then just give up, and change the law ?”

The argument is that if the law is retarded we shouldn’t give up in our efforts to change it.

“Again, with the bank robbers, so if there were many many bank robbers, you consider that it would be just better to let them rob banks ? and not try to catch and convict them ?”

Stealing deprives someone of something rightfully (not just legally) theirs. I have a natural right to make a copy of anything I want and not worry about things like copyright and patents. Anyone using our broken legal system to deprive me of that right is taking something not owed to them, it’s legalized theft. No one is owed a monopoly on anything.

“If I received a letter telling me I was file sharing, when I was not and asking me to pay, I would fight it all the way, and let them take me to court. And I would win.”

Maybe you have more money and resources than others to fight it with.

“The fact virtually NO ONE does that in a country FULL of lawyers indicates only ONE THING,,, guilt.. “

and you know this because?

“the fact that most pay, means they consider themselves guilty, the fact that so many settle out of court, means also they know their guilt and want to cut a deal.”

Psychic TAM strikes again!!!

“Most people find it trivial to abey the laws, thats why most people do not have records.”

Then there is no reason for the RIAA et al to keep on demanding stricter laws that make it easier for them to better enforce the law since infringement is a minority issue and hence should hardly affect their business since most people who see the movie will buy it. You truly are an idiot TAM.

“The law is there to stop you doing things against the majority of the peoples wishes”

I do not believe the majority of the people approve of 95 year copyright terms (or the lifetime of the artist plus 70 years). They do not, it was special interest groups and not the majority that lobbied for these laws, which is evidence that laws that blatantly go against the majority can be passed and are passed. So it is reasonable to conclude that many of the other laws in place also go against the majority and if the majority really believed in the laws in place things like file sharing shouldn’t be such a threat since only a small minority would break copyright laws.

“If the people do not like specific laws, or the way society is run, they elect new representives in government, they elect people who agree with their idea’s, and who will influence the changing of the laws.”

and perhaps part of the whole point of these discussions is to help discuss what’s wrong with our legal system to ultimately help figure out who to elect.

“And if you dont like the structure and legal framework, and protections that affords you, you are more than free to move to a country that has less laws (lawless), or more laws that might be more to youre licking.”

As Martin Luther says, an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Moving is not a solution to unjust laws, correcting those laws is the solution.

“or the middle east where you might have you’re hand cut off for file sharing (theft). “

I highly doubt that they consider file sharing theft in the middle east, and you calling it theft is dishonest TAM.

“It requires people to not do things others dont want them to”

How is this not tyrannical?

“or against the rightfull owners wishes.”

Being an author of something doesn’t make you a rightful owner. Might make you a “legal” owner, but not a “rightful” owner.

“It is theft, because the rightfull owner does not want you to have it, without fairly purchasing it, after all if he wants to eat to be able to product more, there has to be some incentive.”

I would rather him get another job and not produce more than to restrict my right to copy whatever I want. If he wants to eat to produce more, get another job instead of demanding a legal system that gives you special privileges that restrict the rights of others. No one is forcing him to produce art, plenty of other people are perfectly willing to produce art and music and whatnot without copyright and they do produce them under licenses designed to circumvent copyright laws to some extent. I don’t want a legal system that subsidizes art and music with artificial protections at the expense of other marginally more relevant sectors of the economy. Not to mention the cost of enforcing these laws, the cost in privacy and liberties and rights and the monetary cost that society must pay to keep track of what’s infringement and what’s not and to know ahead of time what’s not infringement before doing anything, etc.. no thank you. You have no right to impose these costs on anyone.

“The value of something is the price”

Value and price are not the same thing, the air you breath is very valuable to you but it’s free.

“You dont get to make that determination, by law, and by social ethics.”

and who anointed you the ultimate arbitrator of social ethics, may I ask?

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Must suck having to be honest and law abiding.I do not believe the majority of the people approve of 95 year copyright terms (or the lifetime of the artist plus 70 years)

“I do not believe the majority of the people approve of 95 year copyright terms (or the lifetime of the artist plus 70 years)”

ME :

1] Commission a “Harris poll” of the electorate. Only way to know ,,

except we do elect our congress ,, and 100% of them like current copyright law _- ( i.e, but not always Patent , esp bio-tech)

2] I would be curious as to a VERY unscientific poll of techdirt READERS ,, not just posters , on this topic.

Mike sometime has those reader polls up on the front page.

Go for it Mike.

I am curious, how a slightly fuller slice of the techdirt READERSHIP,, feel as about his point: “I do not believe the majority of the people approve of 95 year copyright terms (or the lifetime of the artist plus 70 years)”

Why not try a poll ?

Now I would say , most posters , hate copyright with exteme passion ( The Pirates).

There are only 7-10 individual regular poster , who are the “good guys” ,

, er– who reflect my “self-righteous viewpoint” ,

, er,, “who see it my way”;

OR ,, who just do not think I am plain nuts.

Again only 7-10 here posting on my side of the aisle.

But I bet — 5 cents cash –that among Techdirt READERS,
the “Silent Majority” * will side with me 55%-45% or more.

——————

* Oh my mercy me ! With the phrase “Silent Majority”,, I am quoting Richard Nixon !! I never though it would come to this.

I need a break.
————–
I am going to smoke a cigg

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Must suck having to be honest and law abiding.I do not believe the majority of the people approve of 95 year copyright terms (or the lifetime of the artist plus 70 years)

Doesn’t change the fact that I fucking hate copyright. And I’m an artist! So you should listen to me because I’m an artist!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Must suck having to be honest and law abiding.I do not believe the majority of the people approve of 95 year copyright terms (or the lifetime of the artist plus 70 years)

So you believe that current copyright laws are acceptable? Wow. See everyone, this is the mentality of IP maximists.

You know what. I think I’m starting to get this. You’re either an anti IP advocate pretending to be pro IP or you’re drunk.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Beating a dead horse specialist TP

TP, the reason you get so much flak on this board isn’t because your representing the “other side”. You see almost everyone here on Techdirt is trying to think outside of the box.

We are trying to come up with new ideas/concepts to deal with the new emerging world. Your wanna-be devils advocate drivel is simply not needed. Your crying from inside the box and we are on the outside laughing at your inability to think critically.

If you want to advance the conversation please do so, but so far I think your work has been of dubious value at best. Can you come out of the box and join the big boys? Or are you really just a lap dog?

Don’t keep spiraling down the drain TP

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Beating a dead horse specialist TP

YOU :Your wanna-be devils advocate:

ME :I am in the mainstream , of the real world. Again Find me any sitting federal Judge OR congress -person who favors looser copyright laws as they currently cover artists and musicians.

YOU : drivel is simply not needed.

Right and wrong.

You see the Pirate cause is politically hopeless.

You might as well be advocating legalizing 8-year-olds to vote. Only a Constitutional amendment could do that.
Possible , but very, very unlikely.

To kill off copyright you would have to remove Copyright from the U.S. Constitution with an amendment.

Good luck ,, but it ain’t going to happen.

YOU :

Your crying from inside the box and we are on the outside laughing at your inability to think critically”

ANS:

Fools tend to laugh the loudest.

Trust me , I have been thinking critically and involved politically for decades now.

I have political friends from “Anarchy Loving Squatters” all the way to “Palin Tea Party types”.

I know I have studied academically , and worked politically in politics most all my life.

My degree is in Pol-Sci, (2001)

and my old boss is named Ralph Nader. ( 1983-1986 / 92-95)

I was pushing things like recycling in the 1980s
when it was still a very weird thing to do.

Now recycling is LAW and CULTURE .

To tell me I do not know how to think outside the box.
says more about your shallowness of perception, than it does my words.

The words and opinions , I write here , have been tested academically often. I always do well there. You cannot get a degree in political science, without understanding all theories and all sides to all arguments.

One sided dogmas is not what Political Science is about.

Clearly though I am an advocate for a belief. So is Mike . So are you.

I believe Copyright is good. And needs to get better. That is also political reality. !00% of Federal Judges ,, and 100% of Congress support it . ( Name any who do not if you can.)

Advocating to allow 12-year-olds the right to vote, stands more political chance than taking copyright out of the Constitution and American legal system.

If you do not accept that you are blinded by YOUR DOGMA.

Most likely it being an anarchist philosophy.

I got a lot of anarchist friends.

I have certain sympathies there.

( esp in grammar ans phonetic spelling !!!) ,

, but I feel that as long as evil exists in this world ,

Anarchy as a political system , is far from feasible.

People do crime. BP spills oil. You need Government.

Our Government , is the chief advocate and protector of copyright law. We elect our government. Government is bound to ENFORCE the constitutional right to copyright.

The Constitution is all we need, and the courts can do the rest.

The laws may need some “digital- realization” to focus on the future better , ,, but congress , and international lawyers and diplomats are doing that everyday– fighting to strengthen Copyright against illegal Piracy.

The theft of service , Art , or Goods,, w/o permission of the Rights Holders.

This ain’t gonna change.

Lobby and organize all you want ,, but without Pirate-political -power,, Pirates will forever be at war with the Government , on land , on sea and online , and they will be prosecuted and sued in court.

If you view Piracy as a legitiment form of civil disobedience ,, well you are wrong.

Civil disobedience is passive ,, it does not consume $$$ to gain wealth buy stealing.

Shoplifting is not civil disobedience.

Subway fare beating is not civil disobedience

Piracy is not civil disobedience.

Civil right marchers were not in it for the $$ ,, to get something for nothing.

It was about “civil human rights”.

Piracy advocates taking away control from me of my ART.

I got the government , congress , and the courts , wholly on my side.

Don’t you see that reality? Why can’t you accept it.

((( Yes slavery was in the constitution at first , and it took a war to remove it.)))

Are Pirates really ready to take up arms to remove copyright form the Constitution ? Do you see any political reality in that premise ?

Do you see yourself making bombs to fight for your “natural right” to download the Beatles remastered CD w/o paying for them ?

That will be the only way.

The U.S. Congress is not gonna weaken the Copyright Laws, nor remove copyright from the constitution

That is not opinion, that is the Reality of Political fact and law and principle.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 TP strikes again, time to call the cleanup crew

TP stop bleaching everything white! You know it is bad for the environment of Techdirt and it can give your arse cancer.

Perhaps at one time you thought outside the box. I applaud your past efforts in recycling although it is clear you never reached the fourth R which is RE-think.

Let me break it down for you so you can understand. Intellectual Property such as copyright is designed for control. This control is exerted by large corporations %99.9 of the time not the “little” guy. This control comes at the cost of the natural rights we have to progress as a society unfettered by a minorities special interest in slowing down the progression of science and arts for monetary gains.

In the end we will make more money, art, invention, and innovation without Intellectual Property. Why advocate for a broken system clearly designed to damage our country?

You assumption that you are only arguing with Pirates shows that you are clearly not playing with a full deck. Here is the challenge! Join us outside the box TP. We are waiting and your gonna get soggy if you hang out in the toilet any longer.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Do you realize how hard it is to abolish copyright law?

Let’s think about this for five seconds. Copyright law is usually called Disney Law. Walt Disney has been dead for more years than I’ve been alive. He, and Elvis Presley make more money now than both of us combined. And yet their estates and businesses are the first to try to extend copyright for ever longer periods!

I mean, seriously, No one on this sight hates copyright. They just hate how it’s corporately owned. Copyright was supposed to protect artist. Well, that went up in smoke the first time Disney lobbied to continue to extend an arbitrary limit that isn’t to promote arts or science…

It’s to fill their bottom line.

Plain. Simple.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: I have a natural right to make a copy of anything I want and not worry about things like copyright and patents.

“I have a natural right to make a copy of anything I want and not worry about things like copyright and patents.”

John Locke and Thomas Jefferson , and even Ayn Rand, all completely disagree with you. I have cited their words numerous times in other posts here. Read more . Write less.

You are living in a philosophical fantasy land.

This is why we have laws, courts , judges , and jurists , to convict you of crimes you commit.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: I have a natural right to make a copy of anything I want and not worry about things like copyright and patents.

“John Locke and Thomas Jefferson , and even Ayn Rand, all completely disagree with you.”

Now you’re just being dishonest.

Quotes from Madison

“With regard to monopolies they are justly classed among the greatest nuisances in government.”

“Would it not suffice to reserve in all cases a right to the public to abolish the privilege at a price to be specified in the grant of it?”

http://rack1.ul.cs.cmu.edu/jefferson/

He considered it a privilege.

and Jefferson

“but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression.”

http://rack1.ul.cs.cmu.edu/jefferson/

“Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not.”

(Thomas Jefferson)

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html

Also see

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100525/0310309561.shtml

But IP maximists are generally dishonest with what they say.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Must suck having to be honest and law abiding.

But the important thing, is this:

YOU DO NOT GET TO DECIDE ON THE VALUE OF A PRODUCT, how many products or items, or paintings or anything for that matter where you get to determine the sales price?

None,
Wrong – see Radiohead, Magnatune etc


To those saying, “it has no value” well it’s not youre call, you dont get to say the value of something, assume the value is zero and therefore you can have it for no cost.

If I thought something had no value then I wouldn’t want it would I …

The value of something is the price or value the rightfull owner of that thing determines it to be.

Wrong. if the owner wants to sell then the price/value will be set by the market – if not then the price/value will remain indeterminate.

The owner might not want to sell it at all, therefore it’s value to him is infinate, no amount of money is enough.
Not infinite – just unknown

Or the value may be something less, the rights owner sets a price, the purchaser agrees to that price and a purchase is made.

OK that is the only part that makes any sense.

BUT – all that was based on possession of a unique physical object.

What I suspect you are talking about is not economics at all but power politics. Once party A sells to party B a copy of some work then any further influence over what party B does is not price/value bargaining but the exercise of power and, as you may have heard, power corrupts. Sort of explains the RIAA doen’t it?

techflaws.org (profile) says:

Re: Must suck being clueless

Ofcourse it has an effect on the downloading community, those who have got a legal notice, will certainly think twice before doing it again, and those who hear or read about those people paying fines, will think may be it’s better to not steal it.

Actually they will shun morons who use “stealing” in this context and simply move on from P2P to encrypted bitlockers. True story!

puzzler995 (profile) says:

Wow...

Some of you people are CLUELESS!!!!

First of all, this is why I support FOSS (Free Open Source Software). If its all free, then there would be no piracy!!! 😉

Second, the RIAA and MPAA will never be able to stop the downloaders. Just look at all the futile attempts to take down The Pirate Bay (http://thepiratebay.org/legal). Plus more and more artists are dropping the record labels. It wont be able to be stopped.

Richard (profile) says:

Settling means nothing

As the RIAA lawsuits showed us, most people will settle. Data from the recording industry lawsuits, revealed in a court case, showed that 11,000 of the 18,000 Does settled immediately
Faced with the choice between settling for a moderate amount of money and getting into a potentially endless legal nightmare against an opponent with far greater resources most people will settle – regardless of the merits of the case.
A few years ago a German relative of ours died. During her lifetime she had sold a plot of land to a local builder. When she died it turned out that the builder’s lawyers had been incompetent and the title of the land was uncertain. The builder decided to recover the costs of fixing this from our relative’s estate. The effect of this was to turn the estate into a debt – so our “inheritance” would be negative. The builder then sued to recover the remaining money from us. This was completely unjust since we were not involved in the original transaction – and it was the other side’s error anyway. Nonetheless, faced with an awkward case in a foreign court we settled. It was clearly easier that way.

The fact that someone is prepared to settle such a case does not mean that they accept guilt. It does however raise the suspicion that the person bringing it is guilty of extortion.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Settling means nothing

“It does however raise the suspicion that the person bringing it is guilty of extortion.” – how? if you didnt do anything wrong, why not fight it? obviously some cases were dropped, which would be totally against the concept of extortion. i just think using terms like extortion are nice ways to cover up the very basic reality: the lawsuits are being won, and the more than these cases turn out positive for the plaintiffs, the more lawsuits you will see.

ask yourself this: if every time you downloaded, you got a legal letter demanding $1500, how many times would you download?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Settling means nothing

“how?”

Pay me or you’re going to spend tons of money and time and resources on legal expenses.

“if you didnt do anything wrong, why not fight it?”

Lawyers aren’t cheap and lawsuits take tons of time that can be better spent on other things.

“obviously some cases were dropped, which would be totally against the concept of extortion.”

No, that would support the fact that they were trying to extort people but realized that some people weren’t falling for it.

“i just think using terms like extortion are nice ways to cover up the very basic reality: the lawsuits are being won, “

Which only enforces the fact that extortion is the correct term.

“and the more than these cases turn out positive for the plaintiffs, the more lawsuits you will see. “

Legalized extortion.

“ask yourself this: if every time you downloaded, you got a legal letter demanding $1500, how many times would you download?”

Ask yourself this, if every time someone broke anti drug laws, they went to jail, how many people would break anti drug laws? Yet, despite the fact that breaking drug laws are a criminal matter, not a civil matter, and a whole lot more money is spent on the drug war than piracy, the drug war is a total failure.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Settling means nothing

How much has been spent for the War on Drugs in the past 50 years?

Oh right, about $1 trillion. And the price of cocaine has gone down! Way to make a dent in that supply, drug warriors!

Cocaine is cheaper today than it was 20 years ago. The War on Drugs is a failure.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Settling means nothing

Here is an estimate on how much is spent on the war on drugs this year.

$8,762,662,989 Federal dollars
$13,450,721,760 State Dollars
$22,213,418,199 Total Dollars

(and the number keeps increasing)

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

and the war is a complete failure, yet is far more justifiable in the eyes of most than the war on piracy. If you can’t control the drug war with all this money I just don’t see how you can control the war on piracy.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 and the war is a complete failure, yet is far more justifiable in the eyes of most than the war on piracy. If you can't control the drug war with all this money I just don't see how you can control the war on piracy.

There all serious political theorist and political theory , that is against drug laws , as victimless crime.

Many civil libertarians — left and right , and even some in courts and congress , do favor a drastic liberalization of the “drug war”.

Heck , the President used to smoke pot ,, and did coke as a youth.

It would NOT take amending the Constitution to legalize Pot.

It would take an amendment to the Constitution to abolish copyright.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Constitutional expert TP at your service

TP, are you suggesting copyright infringement which is not even a criminal matter is not a victimless crime? Maybe I am reading between the lines but I wouldn’t be surprised if you believe this.

We can easily abolish copyright/patent system as we know it by going back to our mission as stated by the Constitution. The Constitution and the Supreme court are clear about the rules of copyright to only promote the arts it protects without harming their continued development and for patents the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries.

If the current laws fail this very obvious test then it is abolished. Does 70 years plus life promote? No proof? Well then thats abolished, next! Very simple and would help set sensible limitations that research could back up.

The research could say something like 5 years for copyright on everything with evidence showing that money has been recouped and the limitation on copyright gets the author/artist off their ass and working again. This is all imaginary of course because we would never go about this thing with any logic or evidence!

Trying real hard here TP but I am afraid my arse is getting a little raw. Maybe you can try some two-ply extra soft conversations?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 and the war is a complete failure, yet is far more justifiable in the eyes of most than the war on piracy. If you can't control the drug war with all this money I just don't see how you can control the war on piracy.

Well thank goodness that the whole world is not the Untied States so I guess it might be easier to abolish copyright in other countries.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 and the war is a complete failure, yet is far more justifiable in the eyes of most than the war on piracy. If you can't control the drug war with all this money I just don't see how you can control the war on piracy.

Not necessarily. The constitution says that Congress has the power to grant monopolies, to promote the progress, not that it must grant monopolies. It doesn’t have to.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 and the war is a complete failure, yet is far more justifiable in the eyes of most than the war on piracy. If you can't control the drug war with all this money I just don't see how you can control the war on piracy.

“Many civil libertarians — left and right , and even some in courts and congress , do favor a drastic liberalization of the “drug war”. “

and I’m kinda one of them. I absolutely do not believe that people should be doing illegal drugs (unless there is a valid medical reason for it). But I also don’t believe in taking away peoples rights either.

“There all serious political theorist and political theory , that is against drug laws , as victimless crime.”

Because not giving someone a hamburger monopoly is a crime to the person who wants the monopoly. Only problem? No one is owed a monopoly on anything. Don’t like it, no one is forcing you to produce content. Instead you can better serve society by finding another job.

Anonymous Coward says:

Indie music is so much better than the RIAA garbage. These musicians are struggling and putting their souls into their creations. I can sense their emotions in the lyrics and music and they don’t do it for money and fame. The different styles of music is incredible because they are free to create as they please.

I’m so grateful to the RIAA fo causing me to take notice of Indie music.

Anonymous Coward says:

I stopped buying music from RIAA labels altogether around 2003 specifically because of these shenanigans. I simply could not bear the idea of giving my money to an organization that was going to turn around and use it to sue the pants off of unwitting grandmothers, children, and college students. I followed all stories about the lawsuits and their outcomes closely, and found the whole lawsuit machine completely detestable.

It’s 7 years later and the RIAA has not received one more penny of my money.

Success!

The Pirate says:

They suceeded!

Only in annoying people, everybody I know have no problems being a pirate, they don’t say that out loud anymore because they don’t want trouble.

But asked if they would stop, everyone say no, what a surprise, they now get things from a friend of a friend of a friend(funny really), but it didn’t really stopped anyone from doing it. They all learned how to do in more sneaky ways that is all, they all know it is against the law and they all just ignore it and some of them even got letters and they just ignore them(not wise).

I’m proud to say I’m a pirate, I have no shame, feel no guilt about it and couldn’t care less what others say.

The irony is that I make some money selling “IP” products that I see others copying and using and I don’t care, good for them, even if they didn’t pay me I wouldn’t be angry with them, I expend hours, days and sometimes weeks doing modelling in 3D, people cuss at me, down harsh critics at my work and I still do it and some still pay for it. I don’t need copyright to protect me, or my market I can compete and when I cannot anymore I’m sure I will find something to do, I don’t entrap people for me that is immoral, they can copy my ideas, they can use it if they can do it by themselves and I find it wonderful.

Will I ever stop copying others?

No!

And so do others I know, all those attempts to call people criminals is tiresome and are annoyances but don’t really change people or changed them fundamentally they still pirate everything they get their hands on and I don’t see it stopping any time soon.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: I'm proud to say I'm a pirate, I have no shame, feel no guilt about it and couldn't care less what others say.

“I’m proud to say I’m a pirate, I have no shame, feel no guilt about it and couldn’t care less what others say.

Or :

I’m proud to say I’m a RAPIST , I have no shame, feel no guilt about it and couldn’t care less what others say.

or :
I’m proud to say I’m a SHOPLIFTER, I have no shame, feel no guilt about it and couldn’t care less what others say.
——

Give it up Pirates.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: I'm proud to say I'm a pirate, I have no shame, feel no guilt about it and couldn't care less what others say.

“copying != Rape”

You can “rape” ideas.

Copying “rapes” my Artist control ,when I say ,”no Copies . w/o permission”

It that hard to understand?

It is not for normal & moral, adults and children !!!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 I'm proud to say I'm a pirate, I have no shame, feel no guilt about it and couldn't care less what others say.

Yes. I “raped” someone once because “rape” is just like copyright infringement. That bitch totally deserved to be “raped” and by bitch I, of course, mean content.

That content was asking for it, dressing all sexy.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 I'm proud to say I'm a pirate, I have no shame, feel no guilt about it and couldn't care less what others say.

You did not say “Rape my idea” – you said “Rapist” which implies one who *physically* rapes another. Rape is and always has been a *crime* committed through the application of physical force. Your lame argument about raping an idea is a strawman – an attempt to emotionally charge an issue that is a civil one at best, and never a crime. I don’t understand why you continue to contribute to this forum. It is obvious you are in opposition to everything we are debating here (more than just PIRATZ btw). If your purpose is to educate us, then you are massive fail, because being obnoxious and demeaning will *never* score points. Your arguments are simple “I’m better than you, so you suck” – I have never advocated piracy – by any means, but I am firmly against the continued erosion of my natural rights by our corporate overlords. Your rights of “Artist control” end once you’ve sold me your art. If you as an artist don’t wish to share your art, nobody is forcing you to do so, that is your right to retain. Once you sell your art (to me or your corporate overlords), *you* lose control. Period. If you want to keep control then don’t sell it.

If you want to engage in a debate with someone other than an eighth grader, then you need use something other than insults to win your argument. If you can’t bother to do that, then leave.

The Pirate says:

Lets do an empiracal test.

Put a baby in a box and don’t let him copy anything and see how he grows up.

Then put another boy with a rich enviroment from where he can copy a lot of things from others and see how one develops.

We all know the answer to that, without copying and sharing people don’t evolve as much, IP laws harm development more than they help.

The U.S. growth was fantastic when they didn’t care much about IP laws and they have lost that when people gave in on the dream that they can own ideas. Greed is destroying a beautiful country with beautiful people. Control freaks are harming the country I was born in and that makes me sad.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: The U.S. growth was fantastic when they didn't care much about IP laws

“The U.S. growth was fantastic when they didn’t care much about IP laws”

U.S. laws have always support copyright . the purpose to of Copyright and Patent law is to PROMOTE economic growth.

Always has been , Always will be.

( Do I really have to cite T.J. and Madison again ?)

Question says:

Re: Re: The U.S. growth was fantastic when they didn't care much about IP laws

Nonsense, for the most part the American industry grew out of shameless copying.

I think people can show in a graph how the decline of production of physical goods coincide with the ascension of imaginary rights. That should have been a red flag.

Invanding Forces says:

There are 2 famous political figures.

“I believe Copyright is good. And needs to get better. That is also political reality. !00% of Federal Judges ,, and 100% of Congress support it . ( Name any who do not if you can.)”

Minister of Culture Gilberto Gil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilberto_Gil

quote:
“Today’s digital technologies represent a fantastic opportunity for democratizing access to knowledge,” Gil said. “We have found that the appropriation of digital technology can be an incredible upgrade in skills of political self-management and the local political process.”

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9786370-7.html

MEP Christian Engström
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Engstr%C3%B6m

Question. says:

Re: Re: There are 2 famous political figures OUT OF HUNdreds of thousands of elected officials

Actually no there are more than just 2 people.

Hadopi was defeated the first time, because the French government sub-estimated the opposition that voted against it. So there are at least a dozen there in France.

In the U.K. the green party is mostly against copyright laws today those are dozens more political people.

India is mostly against it, not to mention the Chinese.

And the opposition keeps growing, but you already knew that, that is why you are afraid and feel the need to keep talking even when you know you have no ground to stand on, because you know it is getting shaking and things are changing. Slowly but surely things are changing and they are not going your way that is why you keep trying to say that pirates are a minority but if that was true why bother, a minority can’t do that much harm economically can it?

The pirate minority is such a threat that you feel the need to address it? They are the minority aren’t they, they don’t have pull, power and according to you don’t even have representation, where is the logic in fearing that minority?

Unless of course you know better and know it is not a minority but a big chunk of the population doing the pirating and they have something that scares people in power, they have numbers and that could translate to votes, so you are here to say to people that, piracy is bad and is only a small percentage of the people doing it.

I feel sorry for you, your job is a hard one.

Invanding Forces says:

There are 2 famous political figures.

In the U.k. copyright is controversial.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/15/historian_copyright_caution/print.html

In Sweden things don’t look rosy for copyright.
http://torrentfreak.com/swedish-politicians-strike-blows-at-copyright-lobby-080110/

In France HADOPI was defeated in a voting because there was a large number of people against it.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/French-Anti-Piracy-Bill-Fails-Surprisingly-109208.shtml

It is not universal, there are many many people in politics that don’t like copyright right now and it is growing.

Day says:

Copytards when asked to provide proof of harm stall.

Where is the harm exactly?

2008 top ten bring in $400 million dollars.
http://omg.yahoo.com/news/hollywoods-best-paid-actors/11080

Pirates are destroying the entertainment industry that is clear, we can see all the harm done with our own eyes right in front of us, nobody can deny the deleterious effects it is having on earnings by the top artists in all medias, I’m shocked! shocked!

Piracy is evil I’m telling you, it is destroying artists everywhere LoL

Look at the poor earnings of those people.

Anonymous Coward says:

and TP, regarding the “need” to have “more Pirate slayers to post” the very reason the mainstream media won’t allow IP critics, like Mike Masnick, a chance to present opposing views on mainstream media is exactly because they know that their pro IP position is indefensible and that convincing the public to be pro IP is excruciatingly difficult and if they allowed the IP criticisms that we post here on Techdirt to enter mainstream media the people will much more rapidly force the government to largely diminish IP laws.

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re:

“i just think it is the start of the next wave, few cases went to court, and pretty much all of those were wins for the copyright holders. pretty much sums it up, no?”

No. A lot of those “wins” are under appeal for, at least, the amount of damages awarded being wildly out of line with the infraction committed or a number of other reasons such as the iffy notion that one can assume an identity from an IP address alone.

Be nice to see your stats, though, should you have any.

Oh, and what might the next wave be? Senior’s Tuesday like Safeway or various customer appreciation days or releasing a CD with 15 good tracks instead of 2 and 13 of bad filler?

Oh well. I should stop now. Expecting reasoned discussion from you is like expecting the tides will stop rising and falling at some point in my life span.

ttfn

John

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Where is the harm? Copyright is still a farce in the age of supercopying machines that fit in our pockets.

Technically true , to a limited extend.

If I put my Art out there, Pirates and Layers will have fights over access to it. It can get messy and costly ,, but it is worth the fight against Pirates to keep MY ARTIST CONTROL as intact as possible.

Many artist ,, keep much of their work private — myself included as i do not want it to get dirty in public– yet.

J. D. Salinger is a prime example there .

Technopolitical (profile) says:

and IP laws aren't really for the artists, they're mostly for the record labels

“and IP laws aren’t really for the artists, they’re mostly for the record labels”

WRONG !!! WRONG !!! VERY WRONG !!!

this is the problem with you uneducated and/or un-thinking Pirates.

IP is to protect ARtists and Inventors !! that is the foundation of it !

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

Anonymous Coward says:

and IP laws aren't really for the artists, they're mostly for the record labels

That’s the stated purpose, it’s not the true purpose. Don’t confuse the two. and as far as educated, you’re the retard arguing with Richard, who has a PhD in physics while you are too stupid with your reading comprehension problem to be able to properly interpret the link he posts.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

The reason why we should give up IP laws, or seek to correct them, is partly because there is nothing wrong with infringement.

This entire sub =thread is Pirate Pretzal logic from Pirates.

You proof my points to any thinking moral person, with your own words.

I know you do not get it .

See you in court Pirate.

If you want i can write to you while you are in Jail

longtimelurker says:

I'm proud to say I'm a pirate, I have no shame, feel no guilt about it and couldn't care less what others say.

—“copying != Rape”

You can “rape” ideas.

Copying “rapes” my Artist control ,when I say ,”no Copies . w/o permission”

It that hard to understand?

It is not for normal & moral, adults and children !!!—

Wow…I dare you to say that to a woman that was actually raped. I’m sure she will see that you were equally affected by pirates as she was by the rapist.

longtimelurker says:

but most people do not feel that IP laws are as necessary

—–It does not matter what most people think,

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause,, protects Artist from MAJORITY tyranny.

that is basic grade school civics !!—–

Awesome, glad you revealed yourself so publicly! Is it basic grade school physics that it does not matter what most people think. Hmmmm. Interesting, good to know your viewpoint. That definitely shows that your care for copyright is all about the advancement of humanity, rather than it being all about your selfishness.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Music Industry Music Industry by Mike Masnick Mon, Jun 7th 2010 11:15am Share This Filed Under: lawsuits, riaa, success Companies: riaa Permalink. Defining Success: Were The RIAA's Lawsuits A Success Or Not?

No.

I have two separate Bachelors degrees.

8 years of college.

In 1995 I was 37 years old when I embarked on my studies,

after 15 years as a well known NYC working musician.

music: http://www.myspace.com/radamhalperin
—————

I have a BA in Pol-Sci from a top 50 university. I also hold

a Writing Arts minor , in addition to the Political Science

Bachelor’s Major.

(((( ( Cool sentence there above if you do not mind me saying so, During my writing courses the Proff would tear apart every sentence you wrote , showing how it could be sharper writing — I was the only one in the class who ever got one perfect 10 sentence. I think the sentence had six words. ))))

I also hold a BA in Religious Theology .

I am not a moron.

===================

I do however have 50 thousand $$$ in student loans, that I now have no concept how I could ever pay back.

Unless my music
music: http://www.myspace.com/radamhalperin

Hits it big, like my friend Ellis Hooks, who was my “partner in musical crime” for those 15 years.

READ HERE : http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=418825547&blogId=486949645

I ran away to college.

Ellis two years later has a chance meeting with

Jon Tiven — who produced Wilson Pickett.

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

Mr. Tivin signs Ellis to a “contract or something”,

((( Ask Ellis’s Lawyer, what ,”contract or something” is.

I do not do law formally ,, I just play a lawyer at home,

Pol- sci degree))))))
————

Well Ellis then wins the WC Handy Award with his debut

album. Ellis has $$,

I hope so .

I also know Ellis does not like Pirates,

We both allowed NO ONE to film us

w/o permission when we performed.

By force if necessary.

Though usually we just quit playing , right in the middle of the song.

No Pirate videos of our performances .

Period.
—————–
I am poor and have 50 thousand $$ in student loans . Ellis has awards and Money.

Yes , Mom says I am a moron for that.

So I am convinced you “AC annoyance posters” who call me moron , idiot , and other even fouler terms ,,

must be my parents !!!

Hi folks !

===============================

Technopolitical's mom says:

Music Industry Music Industry by Mike Masnick Mon, Jun 7th 2010 11:15am Share This Filed Under: lawsuits, riaa, success Companies: riaa Permalink. Defining Success: Were The RIAA's Lawsuits A Success Or Not?

Technopolitical, are you off your meds again? I’ve told you a million times to take your meds every day, if you don’t take them you’re grounded.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

on Tiven Group disbanded, Tiven produced and cowrote a series of albums with soul/blues singer Ellis Hooks

“After the Jon Tiven Group disbanded, Tiven produced and cowrote a series of albums with soul/blues singer Ellis Hooks who was heralded as following in the tradition of Otis Redding, Sam Cooke, and James Brown. “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Tiven

Ellis
http://www.myspace.com/ellishooks1

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Where is the harm? Copyright is still a farce in the age of supercopying machines that fit in our pockets.As an artist all I can say is that artists control nothing except that which they choose not to share with the world.

“As an artist all I can say is that artists control nothing except that which they choose not to share with the world.”

Actually on the re-read you are right.

I now say “technically correct,”

—-

Good semblance of words you wrote there.

Come back anytime.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

IP maximists are just control freaks.

YOU ::: IP maximists are just control freaks.

ME :::You bet we are.

Art take supreme concentration
and introspection.

No mater the Art.

To be Bob Dylan is ………………….

—-

After all the sweat ,,starving ,,and pain ,,,,,if my ART,, the product of MY “supreme concentration
and introspection”,

Is messed with by Pirates,

I IS GONNA BE PISSED.

Good there are laws to protect ARTISTS.

OR maybe the Laws protect the Pirates from me.

This way I do not have to rip the video camera out of their hands, when they film me w/o permission.

===========
I have actually stopped playing my original songs,,

while busking outdoors in Central Park NYC,

because , I cannot control the filming any more .

So , so I am just stuck doing all these Beatles, Dylan , & etc songs out doors. It is a hard life. 🙂

Anonymous Coward says:

Music Industry Music Industry by Mike Masnick Mon, Jun 7th 2010 11:15am Share This Filed Under: lawsuits, riaa, success Companies: riaa Permalink. Defining Success: Were The RIAA's Lawsuits A Success Or Not?

“I have two separate Bachelors degrees.”

See. This is the problem with our educational system these days. Anybody can get a degree.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

l I accept to say that you are now officially a joke to me having equated file sharing to rape.

l I accept to say that you are now officially a joke to me having equated file sharing to rape./

ANS : BOTH ARE ILLEGAL. so is jaywalking.

It is either illegal or legal.

Black or white.

The is no such thing as “almost illegal” in law.

there is no such thing as “almost legal” in law.

But they is way we people called Judges.

They walk , work , and rule , on where the sharp line is between Legal and illegal.
=====================
judge (jj)

v. judged, judg·ing, judg·es
v.tr.

1. To form an opinion or estimation of after careful consideration: judge heights; judging character.

2.
a. Law To hear and decide on in a court of law; try: judge a case.

b. Obsolete To pass sentence on; condemn.

c. To act as one appointed to decide the winners of: judge an essay contest.

3. To determine or declare after consideration or deliberation.

4. Informal To have as an opinion or assumption; suppose: I judge you’re right.

5. Bible To govern; rule. Used of an ancient Israelite leader.
v.intr.

1. To form an opinion or evaluation.

2. To act or decide as a judge.
n.

1. One who judges, especially:

a. One who makes estimates as to worth, quality, or fitness:

a good judge of used cars; a poor judge of character.

b. Abbr. J. Law A public official who hears and decides cases brought before a court of law.

c. Law A bankruptcy referee.

d. One appointed to decide the winners of a contest or competition.

2. Bible

a. A leader of the Israelites during a period of about 400 years between the death of Joshua and the accession of Saul.

b. Judges (used with a sing. verb) Abbr. Judg. or Jgs or Jg See Table at Bible.

[Middle English jugen, from Anglo-Norman juger, from Latin idicre, from idex, idic-, judge; see deik- in Indo-European roots.]
Synonyms: judge, arbitrator, arbiter, referee, umpire
These nouns denote persons who make decisions that determine or settle points at issue. A judge is one capable of making rational, dispassionate, and wise decisions: In this case, the jury members are the judges of the truth.
An arbitrator is either appointed or derives authority from the consent of the disputants: An experienced arbitrator mediated the contract dispute.
An arbiter is one whose opinion or judgment is recognized as being unassailable or binding: The critic considered himself an arbiter of fine literature.
A referee is an attorney appointed by a court to investigate and report on a case: The referee handled many bankruptcy cases each month.
An umpire is a person appointed to settle an issue that arbitrators are unable to resolve: The umpire studied complex tax cases.
In sports referee and umpire refer to officials who enforce the rules and settle points at issue.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Judges [ˈdʒʌdʒɪz]
n
(Christian Religious Writings / Bible) (functioning as singular) the book of the Old Testament recounting the history of Israel under the warrior champions and national leaders known as judges from the death of Joshua to the birth of Samuel

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. JudgesJudges – a book of the Old Testament that tells the history of Israel under the leaders known as judges
Book of Judges
Old Testament – the collection of books comprising the sacred scripture of the Hebrews and recording their history as the chosen people; the first half of the Christian Bible
Nebiim, Prophets – the second of three divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Judges

Terms of Use | Privacy policy | Feedback | Copyright © 2010 Farlex, Inc.
Disclaimer
All content on this website, including dictionary, thesaurus, literature, geography, and other reference data is for informational purposes only. This information should not be considered complete, up to date, and is not intended to be used in place of a visit, consultation, or advice of a legal, medical, or any other professional.

===================
===========
=======
==
=
=end

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Music Industry Music Industry by Mike Masnick Mon, Jun 7th 2010 11:15am Share This Filed Under: lawsuits, riaa, success Companies: riaa Permalink. Defining Success: Were The RIAA's Lawsuits A Success Or Not?

Except a cheating Pirate.

yes , alot of people have degrees.

I am not saying i am a Wile Coyote super genius

Just not an academically intellectual moron.

that’s all/

Fair point ?

===================

I can’t fimd my house keys again?!?

mmm,,,,any body see…..??

thats when our moms go “moron” to us all !!

You con be king of the world , and mom and dad , can still call you a “moron”,

and be right.-
——————————-

To the fathers of Pirates everywhere :

Happy fathers day soon!

Hi mom !!

=========

“Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIPr23xyoZg

Technopolitical (profile) says:

And what is wrong with giving up and coming up with something new. Are we bound by archaic laws that makes no sense forever?

“And what is wrong with giving up and coming up with something new. Are we bound by archaic laws that makes no sense forever?”

No we are not slavery is an example.

But Murder and theft ?

——————–

YOU :
“And what is wrong with giving up and coming up with something new?”

ME: It is my ART I control it , I need to sell it live and eat.

Sometime I do give it away for free.

My Choice.

The law has ALWAYS protected my choice.

Locke , Jefferson , Madison ans Ayn Rand , all see it my way.

So much so , that Copyrights for Artists,
as in the U.S. Constitution makes the law happen in fact.

Always will. Immutable as Murder , theft , and yes Rape, as always being illegal.

————-

Like I have said,

You will HAVE TO amend the constitution to do away with copyright.

Have fun you Pirates.
=============
We got the Beatles on our Artist Side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imb4tYOk8GE
The Beatles – Revolution (Live)
in my opinion ,
the best 4 min
of rock n roll ever ,

Right here

watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imb4tYOk8GE

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Where is the harm? Copyright is still a farce in the age of supercopying machines that fit in our pockets.

Re: Re: Re: Where is the harm? Re: Re: Copyright is still a farce in the age of supercopying machines that fit in our pockets.
by Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 12:50pm
—————————————-
YOU : What “limited extend”? How is it limited? By what force of nature is it “technically true, to a limited extent”?

ME : GREAT POINTS !!

lets me try here

>>> What “limited extend”?.

ANS : I make my Art, Once public , I will always loose some control,

How you interpret it for one.

Do you see the point i had in mind when I wrote the song?

Our do you Pretzel Logic twist into your own worldview.

But I have still have legal control of my Arts reuse and sale.
================

You : How is it limited?

Me : It is limited by the law.

You CAN PARODY my art legally 100%.

Usually artist LOVE parody of their work,

Imitation is the highest form of compliment.

But even if the original Artist does not like the PARODY,

there is nothing he can do– legally.

He can punch the parody artist in nose if they meet at the Grammy-s,, but it never happens.
————–=============

ME : By what force of nature is it “technically true, to a limited extent”?

ME : Again , I make my Art,
and Once public ,

I will always loose some control,

How you interpret it for one.

=============

YOU :By what force of nature ?

Me : Well here we have to get meta-physical.

Law is man. Thought put on paper. rspected.

The constition itself has no POWER.

It needs the Government.

“Power comes out of the barrel of a gun” — Mao,

( Sorry Mr. Lennon, sometime even Mao hit one good.)

We elect gov’t within the framework of our Constitution, won by rebellion against England ,

and till today fought for by People with guns –

— who represent our President , Governors , and Mayors , and/or any official who command a police or army force —-

So in the “real world” the “force of nature” is Government Guns and Jails.

We have elections , checks and balances , so the Gov’t does not oppress us without our legal consent.

There is always the next election.

If we elect bad leaders , who it to blame?

The People of the Nation.

That is why some nations rise , and some nations fall.

The People.
—————-
What is the “force of nature” above the real materiel world?

Well , either

a] G-d ,

or

b] Objective Morals / Natural law —

— that guide the people to make government.

———————————-

How did i do ?

Jay says:

RE:"???"

I have no idea what quoting Lessig’s supposed to do. But ok…

As I said before, he helmed the movement to a Creative Commons license as well as campaigning against the artificial extension of copyright in Eldred vs Ashcroft.

Still good books to read. I have all three and trust me, he’s still good to review for the coming battles in copyright.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Just because a bad law exists doesn't mean that not negating it is the solution.

Just because a bad law exists doesn’t mean that not negating it is the solution.

ANS : Very true.

try to change Murder. Never

try to change rape. Never

try to change theft Never

try to change Marijuana –please!!

try to change abortion ( not going there)

Try to change income tax : possible . i like flat tax,

Try To change COPYRIGHT : sorry never gonna happen

Technopolitical (profile) says:

I have a natural right to make a copy of anything I want and not worry about things like copyright and patents.

Me and mike, and karl argued these point weeks ago ,

If you read this WHOLE thread BEFORE YOU comment you will see they are addressed elsewhere he too.

T,J, is talking about IDEAS not action.
——————
Your points are strange interpretation.
===============
T.J. WROTE the constitution,, he put COPYright in BEFORE
Free speech..

Take a political philosophy course,

Make these points , you will fail.

Read MORE . Write LESS.

Anonymous Coward says:

TP thinks rape is on the same terms as copyright infringement

TP, it is clear you have failed to join the conversation. Your sensationalism comes as the cost of whatever little credibility you once had.

Your mother would be ashamed of you if she knew how you have trivialized rape. I am ashamed that you are an American citizen.

When you are circling down the toilet TP just remember it’s your own fault and you deserve to be there.

Karl (profile) says:

Music Industry Music Industry by Mike Masnick Mon, Jun 7th 2010 11:15am Share This Filed Under: lawsuits, riaa, success Companies: riaa Permalink. Defining Success: Were The RIAA's Lawsuits A Success Or Not?

Karl , again , your taking very tiny slivers , of philosophers , who are not taken seriously by the VAST majority of their academic peers,

Hume? Tolstoy? Okay, then.

and who write write with an agenda , as opposed to seeking truth

To pirate a phrase from another commenter: “Those kettles will never attain the rich, black shine of us pots.”

They are not [legitimately accepted]. Not by Laws and not by Courts.

The laws and courts – at least in the U.S. – only care about the philosophers who wrote the Constitution. In the case of copyright, this would be Jefferson and Hamilton. Neither agree with your viewpoint.

Not by the Majority of people.

I doubt the majority of people think about it one way or another. But if they did find out the details of current copyright law, they wouldn’t approve of it. If you view their actions as an expression of their views, then most people don’t approve of it now.

Just like you with your “musicians culture” – it’s clearly in violation of copyright law, so what does that say about copyright law? If you’d recognize the truth, that copyright works against “musicians culture,” would you still be defending it so rabidly?

I used napster in 2001.

I never used Napster myself. If I wanted to listen to good music, I’d just borrow my friends’ CD’s, and maybe buy my own copy later. I guess that makes me a “pirate.”

Karl, again, take a philosophy course at any college.

Not that it’s relevant, but I did take quite a few philosophy courses in college. Not enough to understand Husserl, mind you, but nobody actually understands Husserl.

You cannot copyright “IDEAS” ( we have been through this Karl with T.J.’s letters and writings).

Jefferson was explicitly talking about copyrights and patents. He didn’t say “ideas” were not property, he said inventions were not property. If you actually read what he wrote, that would be absolutely, unequivocably clear, which makes me think you didn’t bother.

PROFF : “You cannot copyright IDEAS KARL “

HEAD OF DEPARTMENT: “Proffessor PROFF, you’re being specious.” Because in Socrates’ time, you couldn’t copyright anything. As I clearly said, copyright didn’t exist until after 1709.

So we have to see if the situation is analagous. Here’s the situation: the Sophists believed they had a right to charge people for ideas. Socrates shared ideas for free. Because of this, the Sophists believed he was robbing them of their earnings. That sounds a lot like “piracy” to me.

But let’s turn this around. How many philosophers believed in intangible property (that was not money)? Not many. How many believed that infinite goods could be property? Not many. Not Hume, Locke, Hobbes, or any of the “social contract” political philosophers that were so influential in revolutionary America. That’s probably why Jefferson didn’t believe it, either. And neither did the Supreme Court, when it ruled in Dowling v. United States that infringing materials are not stolen property.

You have said that you believe copyright is a “natural right,” like European “droit d’auteur” (and unlike U.S. law). You have also said that those “rights” should last long after the author has died (I think at one point you said 1000 years). Please, find me a philosopher who believes both those things.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

I feel sorry for you, your job is a hard one.

YOU :I feel sorry for you, your job is a hard one.

ME : thank you .

Please send me some coffee and Samson Tobacco , if you really. feel sorry, that is what drives the posts.here .

But I , and other Artist , including the Beatles , bob Dylan , and Chuck Berry,

, AND Gore Vidal , and Ayn Rand , and all philosophers

& religious leaders living or dead or in between.

All support copyright laws.

—————–

It is easier to carry a heavy bag of gold

than A heavy bag of mud,,

Or

“weight of lead” “Grateful Dead “

New Speedway Boogie by Grateful Dead

http://s0.ilike.com/play#Grateful+Dead:New+Speedway+Boogie:131695:s9129089.12181539.2293942.0.2.166%2Cstd_05bf8146087b4b809b5ed107690d89ed

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Comparing file sharers to bank robbers is disingenuous at best

“Comparing file sharers to bank robbers is disingenuous at best”

Sorry . No !

Law is law.

I was not judging magnitude of wrong.

Some things get you life in jail.
some get you 5 years ,

Some get you a $10 fine — smoking pot in NYC.
————
But Piracy is against the law.

All we are arguing about not in public policy is the sentence,

$10 fine or maybe 5 years, for big time pirates.
===========
Little geeks at home

do not worry.

If the governance does ok ,
you will find illegal downloading nearly impossible
to do from the average home setup.

Pirates will have to be hackers.

http://www.thehacktivist.com/
=====
===
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

Technopolitical (profile) says:

As Martin Luther says, an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Moving is not a solution to unjust laws, correcting those laws is the solution.

“As Martin Luther says, an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Moving is not a solution to unjust laws, correcting those laws is the solution.”

ME : My point exactly . 100% plus.

try to take copyright out of the u.s. constitution.

Good luck.

bye

=============

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Wow..First of all, this is why I support FOSS (Free Open Source Software). If its all free, then there would be no piracy!!! ;).

First of all, this is why I support FOSS (Free Open Source Software). If its all free, then there would be no piracy!!! 😉

ME :: TRUE ,, w/ software. i love Linux & Mozilla .

—-
Try to “Open source” my Art

I will either :

A) “load my shotgun” (Rick Derringer & Ted Nugent ) ,

or

B} call my lawyer ( Me and the Beatles) ,

or

C] both (Willie Nelson).

Technopolitical (profile) says:

and the war is a complete failure, yet is far more justifiable in the eyes of most than the war on piracy. If you can't control the drug war with all this money I just don't see how you can control the war on piracy.

Good luck ..

but even china’s gov’t will fight pirates.

On land

on sea

or

online.
———————
they will follow the $$ in even china .

Communism , my ass .

Marx would be pissed/

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Don't like it, no one is forcing you to produce content. Instead you can better serve society by finding another job.

“Don’t like it, no one is forcing you to produce content. Instead you can better serve society by finding another job.”

Ayn rad addresses this.

Put all tech people on one island , and have them with hold their work, see how society does.

Try to take away Patent totally.

lobby for it .

————

all artist off to our island. Live w/o us you Pirates,

i would be fine with that
====================

Technopolitical (profile) says:

TP thinks rape is on the same terms as copyright infringement

Again.

rape is illegal.

murder is illegal .

theft is illegal

Jaywalking is illegal.

pot is illegal — but not for long.

rape is illegal.

PIRACY will always be illegal .

That is the point !!!

I am not making a value judgment as to the magnitude or the crime.

Some get you life.

some get you a $5 fine.

but it is illegal
==================================

Anonymous Coward says:

There are 2 famous political figures OUT OF HUNdreds of thousands of elected officials

TP, so now everyone who believe in copyright reform is just like a Nazi?

You could have brought up a thousand minority parties but you chose a specific one for a desired effect. This has been done numerous times by you throughout this thread.

Your comments are as fake as you are.

I think you are very politically stupid. Your inability to communicate effectively has shown us all that whatever schooling you have attended (if any) was wasted.