The Only Way To Stop File Sharing Is To Stop Private Communications

from the good-luck-with-that dept

Christian Engstrom, one of the Pirate Party's elected officials in the EU Parliament, has a straightforward, but completely worthwhile read, about how copyright law today simply doesn't fit with what technology has enabled. He worries that the laws are making nearly everyone a criminal -- and worse, that the direction of change has to make it even worse, not better.
It is impossible to enforce the ban against non-commercial file sharing without infringing fundamental rights. As long as there are ways for citizens to communicate in private, they will be used to share copyrighted materials. The only way to even try to limit file sharing, is to remove the right to private communication. In the last decade, this is the direction that copyright enforcement legislation has moved in, under pressure from big business lobbyists who see their monopolies under threat. We need to reverse this trend, in order to safeguard the fundamental rights.
Furthermore, he notes that when you look at the actual details, it certainly does not show an industry in trouble. Perhaps parts of the industry -- the parts betting on distribution over plastic discs -- have had some trouble. But the rest looks pretty damn good:
In the economic statistics, we can see that household spending on culture and entertainment is slowly increasing year by year. If we spend less money on buying CD records, we spend more on something else, like for instance going to live concerts. This is great news for the artists. An artist will typically get 5-7% of the revenues from a CD record, but 50% of the revenues from a concert. The record companies lose out, but this is only because they are no longer adding any value.

It may well be that it will become more difficult to make money within some parts of the cultural sector, but if so, it will become easier in some other ó including new ones, that we have not even imagined so far. But as long as the total household spending on culture continues to be on the same level or rising, nobody can claim that the artists as a group will have anything to lose from a reformed copyright.
Finally, he compares the way the entertainment industry today reacts to file sharing to the way book publishers reacted to public libraries:
When public libraries were introduced in Europe 150 years ago, the book publishers were very much opposed to this. The argument they used was the same one that is being used today in the file sharing debate: If people could get access to books for free, authors would not be able to make a living, and no new books would be written.

We now know that the arguments against public libraries were wrong. It quite obviously did not lead to a situation where no new books were written, and it did not make it impossible for authors to earn money from writing. On the contrary, free access to culture proved to be not only a boon to society at large, but also turned out to be beneficial to authors.
But rather than learning from history, the industry still seeks to deny it.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    John Doe, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 5:09am

    Unfortunately, the tide will not reverse

    Don't think for a minute that congress and the White House don't already realize that they can take away our liberties under the guise of copyright protection. It is a two for one deal with them. If they came out and made private communication illegal, there would be an uproar. But when they effectively do the same thing under the guise of combating piracy, the sheeple keep quiet.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Oct 11th, 2011 @ 5:11am

    What can I say? Great reading from TD.

    But don't hold your breath. We'll need a few more years of human rights trampling before the industry will be put back at their place. And that's specially true when the Governments around the world are happily using the anti-piracy war to implement censorship and surveillance tools on a tool that enables free speech (often against the excesses of the Governments).

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    anonymous, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 5:23am

    what is being said not only makes sense but is also true. what is being done against file sharing is not only the same as was done against libraries but will be just as pointless.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    fogbugzd (profile), Oct 11th, 2011 @ 5:25am

    As the restrictions become tighter and tighter the situation becomes more and more like screwing down the safety valve on a steam engine. Eventually there is going to be an explosion that does a whole lot of collateral damage. The industry should remember that when a steam engine explodes the first one that is taken out is the engineer who was screwing down the safety valve.

    Perhaps a steam engine analogy is archaic, but so is the concept of distributing media on shiny plastic discs.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 6:25am

      Re:

      The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      out_of_the_blue, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 6:42am

      Re: @"fogbugzd" "steam engine analogy is archaic" --and flawed.

      I'm trying to stop use of analogies. This one fails because the system provides "bread and circuses" reliefs to prevent explosions.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        The eejit (profile), Oct 11th, 2011 @ 10:08am

        Re: Re: @"fogbugzd" "steam engine analogy is archaic" --and flawed.

        But...but...what about the explosion relief of bread and circuses? Isn't that equally important in discussing all analogous aspects of paradignamic quasi-alterations of quantum psychology?

         

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

      •  
        icon
        Richard (profile), Oct 11th, 2011 @ 4:17pm

        Re: Re: @"fogbugzd" "steam engine analogy is archaic" --and flawed.

        This one fails because the system provides "bread and circuses" reliefs to prevent explosions.

        Except that the money for bread and circuses is drying up (cf financial crisis, sovereign debt, personal debt etc).

         

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 5:26am

    More mindless pro-piracy dribble from Pirate Mike. Seriously... stop fucking lying to your readers. Just admit that you're pro-piracy. We already know it's true.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 5:27am

      Re:

      Speaking of dribble...

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 5:32am

      Re:

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 5:53am

      Re:

      Cute irony... driveler can't spell "drivel".

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Ninja (profile), Oct 11th, 2011 @ 6:01am

      Re:

      You forgot to mention freetards, syncophants and broadbrush. Fail trolling.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 9:19am

        Re: Re:

        I like to mix it up. But seriously, Ninja, it's pretty obvious, right? How can he post stuff like this day after day yet expect people to believe he's not a piracy apologist nor pro-piracy? Give me a break.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Chosen Reject (profile), Oct 11th, 2011 @ 11:03am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Say I wanted to remove drug laws. Would you consider me an advocate of breaking drug laws? Would you consider me an advocate of drugs? I can tell you that I am neither.

          Say I wanted to remove speeding laws. Would you consider me to be an advocate of speeding? Not only am I not an advocate, but the fact that I want to remove speeding laws, should mean that I want to remove the idea of being a speeder.

          I can't speak for Mike, and I'm not going to, but you sure seem hell-bent on throwing logic and facts out the window. Just because some one says X law should go away or be changed, does not mean that they advocate breaking X law, nor even that they advocate that people should partake in the activity X law prohibits. In this particular case, plenty of people and studies (not just Mike) have shown that copyright holders (and lest we forget, more importantly, authors, musicians, artists, etc) could benefit greatly if file-sharing* were made legal.

          *Note that I said file-sharing and not copyright infringement. If you make file-sharing legal, it is no longer copyright infringement.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 2:18pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Well, if the business models you promote through speeches and presentations, and try to sell to large companies is based on people being heavily sedated or drivers being able to delivery things really quickyly, I would say that you have a vested interest.

            Mike has a vested interest. P2P / Piracy / "infinite distribution" suffers a hit, and his entire "work with piracy" business model thing sort of goes out the window. He knows it, which is why he pushes the piracy agenda as hard as he does.

            No, Mike doesn't support piracy, just the results of it.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 2:50pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Even if it is true which I doubt it, that would mean you also can't comment on anything since you have even more vested interest LoL

               

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

            •  
              icon
              Richard (profile), Oct 11th, 2011 @ 4:22pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Mike has a vested interest. P2P / Piracy / "infinite distribution" suffers a hit, and his entire "work with piracy" business model thing sort of goes out the window.

              What Mike (and I) object to is that enforcement efforts against piracy cause collateral damage to legitimate businesses based on p2p and "infinite distribution".

              It is like being against particular tactics in the war against Nazi Germany (eg carpet bombing) because they cause civilian casualties. Such a stance does not mean that you support Hitler.

               

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

            •  
              icon
              nasch (profile), Oct 11th, 2011 @ 5:05pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              P2P / Piracy / "infinite distribution" suffers a hit, and his entire "work with piracy" business model thing sort of goes out the window.

              It's hard to take you seriously when you conflate those things.

               

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

    •  
      icon
      DannyB (profile), Oct 11th, 2011 @ 6:13am

      Re:

      You fail to address the point. Just spew personal attacks.

      How would you propose to stop piracy without stopping private communications?

      Trying to make patterns of ones and zeros not copyable is like trying to make water not wet.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 6:59am

        Re: Re:

        Maybe the record companies will start to invest in quantum distribution where any unlicensed viewing is automatically detected. /s

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 2:48pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          They are trying to push ULTRAVIOLET, with the promise to "buy once" play everywhere, it has 70 big players in it. Anything from content producers to hardware manufacturers.

          ULTRAVIOLET is a content manager and big brother, you need to connect to its servers to get permission to play something you bought and it will log your habits and how you use that media.

           

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 9:24am

        Re: Re:

        How would you propose to stop piracy without stopping private communications?

        Straw man. The goal isn't to stop piracy completely. It's to minimize it, while balancing other things as well. You guys think in extremes too much. The world isn't black and white.

        Trying to make patterns of ones and zeros not copyable is like trying to make water not wet.

        Yes, things are copyable and water is wet. If you guys want to change the law so that copyright is abolished, then go for it. Until then, realize that your views are in the minority, the law isn't what you want it to be, and just get over it. You're just being selfish dillholes with excuse after excuse.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          jackwagon (profile), Oct 11th, 2011 @ 9:45am

          Re: Re: Re:

          How about we move copyright to a more palatable time frame? 3 years sounds reasonable to me, but I'll compromise and give you 7. After that, it's fair game. Similar for software copyrights. Innovation stagnates when you're paid rents on legacy materials.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          DannyB (profile), Oct 11th, 2011 @ 10:09am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Examples of your own extremism: PROTECT-IP, ACTA, DMCA.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 2:44pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          That is not the goal, the law from a technological stand point is already obsolete and it didn't even pass yet, it was made redundant in the discussion phase and everybody pointed this out already.

          Tell me how that law will reduce piracy? you probably can't because a) you don't understand how piracy works b) you apparently don't even know how it happens.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          chillienet (profile), Oct 11th, 2011 @ 4:02pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Until then, realize that your views are in the minority,

          Heh hehe haha muahahaha Bwahahahahaha!!!!!

          Oh wait, you actually believe that?!?

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Jay (profile), Oct 12th, 2011 @ 12:38am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "The goal isn't to stop piracy completely. It's to minimize it, while balancing other things as well. "

          Yeah, good luck with that. This is going to have an opposite effect. You just keep right on living in dreamland.

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 8:44am

      Re:

      When the revolution comes, your people will be the first to die.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      The Groove Tiger (profile), Oct 11th, 2011 @ 8:48am

      Re:

      Pay no attention to that Techdirt staffer behind the curtain.

       

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    Planespotter (profile), Oct 11th, 2011 @ 5:29am

    uuurgghh! Has he been slurping cum from his monopolist masters cock?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 6:00am

    To stop filesharing you would have to stop private communications of any kind including paper, photo cameras, solid state storage devices, hard disks, wireless, phone lines, radio transmitters/receivers, recording devices of any kind.

    I would like to see them try it.

    Photo cameras today can store sounds.
    http://developer.berlios.de/projects/wavextract

    Guerrila tactics for the masses.
    http://diymusician.cdbaby.com/2011/03/how-to-use-qr-codes-to-promote-your-music-in-the-real -world/

    Barcode file transfer
    http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Barcode_file_transfer

    Build your own network.
    shareable.net/blog/a-low-cost-low-power-diy-cellular-data-network

    Will they forbid all of that?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 6:06am

    C'mon Mike, put the pirate flag on your masthead.

    Are you scared or something?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 6:10am

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 6:25am

    "remove the right to private communication"

    Done! Or nearly. Google and Facebook track you everywhere; Google reads your Gmail; your ISP not only logs all activity, but deep packet inspection taps are now being installed; Windows is back-doored for NSA; your phone can be remotely activated to listen and provides constant GPS location. Ain't technology great, modernist Mike? -- You're at the same time enjoying and promoting the very mechanisms that "technology has enabled". But you dash on heedless that a control system is being built using the very toys that you pay for -- or believe that you're getting for free.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      AJ, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 6:32am

      Re: "remove the right to private communication"

      Hmmmm... "modernist Mike" ..... seems that we have a new troll phrase of the week. 1 interwebs for everyone that can use it in combination with last weeks troll phrase of the week.. hint/ I think last week was "broadbrush"?!

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 6:46am

        Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"

        Extra extra! Read all about it! Modernist Mike broadbrushes entertainment industry! Likens them to 150 year old publishing industry!

        Major fail on part of Pirate M... I mean, Modernist Mike! The past is the past, today is today. You can't equivocate libraries loaning out books with freetards stealing music and movies. More FUD on your part! This isn't about Freedom of Speech, this is just a bunch of people attempting to sugar coat the fact that they're nothing but freeloading criminals. Update the site, Mike. Replace the banner with the TD logo up at the top with the Jolly Roger. Just show us who you are and what you really support already. We all know anyway.

        /amidoingitright?

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 7:51am

          Re: Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"

          "The past is the past, today is today."

          Wow - wisdom for the ages. I really hope you operate on that principle throughout your lift, because I can imaging the following happening:

          - You are surprised every day when the sun comes up
          - You are shocked that water boils at 212 degrees F every time
          - You continue to touch hot stoves out of curiosity

          /amiright?

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 8:15am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"

            Hahaha. Wow. That was pretty pathetic.

            The principle I do operate on, to quote Jim Morrison, is "The future's uncertain and the end is always near."

            I don't worry about yesterday or tomorrow. Never have, never will.

            I'm no fan of the sun and it never surprised me to see it come up, even as a child. I am rarely if ever around boiling water, even when it comes to cooking. I'm a fast food guy and have been since I was a child, so stoves and me rarely are around each other, thus I've never touched them. I was always interested in fire though, so I'm aware of what burns easily or doesn't, what I should avoid (as in may be hot), etc.

            /youarewrongbutthismaynotbenewstoyou

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 8:21am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"

              Whew! I was worried that you didn't understand the concept of patterns--how sometimes you can use past experiences to shape your understanding of current happenings.

              That's a relief.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 3:18pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"

                Oh, you mean kind of like the entertainment industry? And the whole "this will kill our industry" speeches they give every decade. And here we are, watching them piss and moan over essentially the same thing yet again.

                Or perhaps comparing stopping anything in general to Prohibition. And how all it did was make it more profitable for criminals and outlaws? All the while, the public flaunted the laws put in place, which were eventually repealed after being seen for the dismal failure they were.

                That kind of past experience to shape understanding of current happenings? I might say silly/stupid things on occasion, but I'm not as clueless as I like to act. It provides good cover. Make people think you're an idiot, then blindside them with all the knowledge you do have that they don't and leave them stunned and sputtering, or watch them walk off mad they lost the argument, or see them resort to personal attacks. Either way, it's entertaining.

                As for me personally, wtf are you talking about? I was making a joking/sarcastic post to start with, then you went off on one bit I said in it and here we are now. You still not even making much of a point, unless your point is to insult me (and you're doing a bad job of it, just fyi).

                 

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 6:41am

      Re: "remove the right to private communication"

      Why don't you fear a totalitarian government?
      You honestly believe having a government that spies on everything you say, do or think is the way to protect your paycheck?
      Where do you draw the line? Or could it be that you are just trying to be a Internet bully and don't believe the totalitarian crap you are blathering about?
      Sometimes this isn't about the small minded argument about IP but just how much control you are willing to giveaway to your government.
      I simply just don't know what to believe from you and your peers any more.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        out_of_the_blue, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 6:46am

        Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"

        You have completely misunderstood me. I'll try to write more clearly in future.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      out_of_the_blue, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 6:56am

      Re: "remove the right to private communication"

      [Note to self.

      ) Don't use witty names for Mike, just distracts from any point.

      ) Always disclaim NOT FOR big gov't or big biz. Audience has the memory of gnats.

      ) Expecting a post to be read and grasped entire is too much, just sigh.

      ) Even if were read, people don't care for the truth, not why they're here.

      ) On plus side, brief works better. Attention span of target is 140 characters, keep it snappy.

      ]

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Jay (profile), Oct 11th, 2011 @ 7:01am

        Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"

        If you told the truth, people would respect your posts more.

        But sometimes, your rants are out of this world and you can't explain yourself without trying to ridicule your audience. Just sayin.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 7:12am

        Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"

        While I appreciate that you are trying to be funny and sarcastic at the same time, I really do want to best understand your point of view.
        While I may not be the smartest person to participate in this discussion, at 51 year old, I do think I have a pretty good grasp of the concepts. I appreciate a honest and well thought out comment.
        I also want to thank you for your reply to my earlier comment. Your reply felt sincere and honest.
        And I am here because I do care about and for the truth. I'm just willing to admit that what you and I may see as the truth, may not be the same. That's what makes the real discussions interesting and insightful.
        Thank you for the reply.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        out_of_the_blue, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 7:13am

        Re: "remove the right to private communication"

        )Remember Im a douche and nobody cares

        *sorry I forgot one

         

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

      •  
        icon
        Rikuo (profile), Oct 11th, 2011 @ 7:25am

        Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"

        "On plus side, brief works better. Attention span of target is 140 characters, keep it snappy."

        That's odd, I remember a quote from you before where you complained about the length of the article.
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111006/12220616236/lawrence-golan-speaks-about-golan-v- holder-his-fight-to-protect-public-domain.shtml
        then do a CTRL-F for "out_of_the_blue". You said you lost interest because it was too long.

        Hang on...you also promised in that comment to go away if Mike didn't provide you with interesting articles. Since he does, but you don't count them as interesting (so the entertainment industry's campaign to nickle and dime us each time we listen to a piece of music isn't interesting), you lied.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), Oct 11th, 2011 @ 7:07am

      Re: "remove the right to private communication"

      "Google and Facebook track you everywhere; Google reads your Gmail; your ISP not only logs all activity, but deep packet inspection taps are now being installed; Windows is back-doored for NSA; your phone can be remotely activated to listen and provides constant GPS location."

      Hmmm. Not quite. Each can be bypassed with the following:

      1) Don't use Facebook and only allow cookies and ads from trusted sources.

      2) Use an encrypted VPN connection.

      3) Use Linux

      4) Use a "burn phone"

      Isn't technology great?

       

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

      •  
        icon
        E. Zachary Knight (profile), Oct 11th, 2011 @ 7:08am

        Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"

        Sorry, forgot one:

        5) Host your own email.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        RIch Kulawiec, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 7:36am

        Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"

        All good suggestions, especially "don't use Facebook". Or any of the others.

        Add to these: use Firefox (never IE), do not use Outlook, use TrueCrypt, use Firefox extensions like NoScript and AdBlock, wipe your cache/cookies/etc., use encryption for email, nmap yourself and turn off everything you can. All these combined are just a beginning, of course, but they're a pretty good beginning.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          helpful bot, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 1:13pm

          Re: Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"

          Add to that start: use GHOSTERY plugin on Firefox! That will help to really open one's eyes to what is going on online.

           

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 7:24am

    What is funny on this one is that while true in an absolute sense, it is a bit of strawman argument.

    The content producers aren't trying to stop 100% of all piracy. There has always been a certain amount of play in the system (from lending of records, to ye olde mix tape, and so on) that while not "legal" in a perfect sense, was tolerated for the most part (and supported by the courts in general).

    Since nobody is trying to stop every last iota of piracy, using that as the standard for success or failure is pure and unadulterated bullshit.

    If you make it harder to pirate, make it something that is done only in your direct social circle and not with any dingbat online, piracy would drop dramatically. It would slow the spread, it would slow down distribution, and would certainly make it harder for the casual user to get the content via pirate sources.

    So if you want to say "It can't stop ALL piracy", nothing short of killing all of humanity can do that. It isn't about elimination, it's about limiting.

    Strawman posts always suck.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Oct 11th, 2011 @ 7:39am

      Re:

      So you're saying it's OK to restrict private communication, as long as it's not COMPLETELY banned?

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 7:49am

      Re:

      If you make it harder to pirate, make it something that is done only in your direct social circle and not with any dingbat online, piracy would drop dramatically. It would slow the spread, it would slow down distribution, and would certainly make it harder for the casual user to get the content via pirate sources.

      Speaking of straw men . . .

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 8:09am

      Re:

      "If you make it harder to pirate, make it something that is done only in your direct social circle and not with any dingbat online, piracy would drop dramatically. It would slow the spread, it would slow down distribution, and would certainly make it harder for the casual user to get the content via pirate sources."

      Comments like these a show how little you (and people who post it regularly like you) actually know about piracy, copyright or anything remotely to do with distribution or even selling of goods and services. Its clear you haven't worked a day in your life. At least not in Entertainment or Retail.
      The fact is, in your world view all of the above seems to be major problem when it clearly isn't, nor has it ever been. If it was, services that compete directly with things like "piracy" would not exist (they do) nor would they be profitable(and they are). None of this is new, the 'industry' has been whining about it for almost 200 years now, and yet they make more money year after year after year.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 9:45am

        Re: Re:

        Besides a meaningless and incorrect rant, can you actually articulate an argument and some point, rather than just frothing at the mouth and saying nothing?

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Rich, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 9:12am

      Re:

      Lending of records has ALWAYS been legal, even in the "perfect sense."

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 9:39am

      Re:



      The content producers aren't trying to stop 100% of all piracy. There has always been a certain amount of play in the system (from lending of records,
      to ye olde mix tape, and so on) that while not "legal" in a perfect sense, was tolerated for the most part (and supported by the courts in general).

      Since nobody is trying to stop every last iota of piracy, using that as the standard for success or failure is pure and unadulterated bullshit.




      If the copyright holders don't want to pursue private copying between friends, so much more reason to legalize what they aren't going to enforce.

      If you're saying is that it's a strawman because no one would ever enforce copyright law against friend to friend sharing, sharing in these situations should be made legal.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 9:48am

        Re: Re:

        "If the copyright holders don't want to pursue private copying between friends, so much more reason to legalize what they aren't going to enforce.

        If you're saying is that it's a strawman because no one would ever enforce copyright law against friend to friend sharing, sharing in these situations should be made legal."

        It's the same reason why the speed limit is set at 65, even if the police won't write a ticket under 75. It's the same reason why we have jaywalking laws, which are only enforced occassionally (or in the case of an accident).

        You set the bar at a certain level, then you have some space for tolerance.

        If the speed limit was raised to 75, and police attempting to enforce it hard at 76, they would be thrown out of court of not having some tolerance and common sense.

        Sorry, modifying the copyright laws in the way you suggest is like the medical weed fiasco in California. What seemed like a good idea has just turned in to a way for dopeheads to get their drugs "legally" by having all sorts of aches and pains that only the weed doctors can "cure".

        Tolerance is what makes the system great. Don't destroy it.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 10:04am

          Re: Re: Re:

          http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/09/be-safe-break-the-law.html

          Eventually the absurdity of the 55 mph speed limit sunk in and in 2006 MassHighway traffic engineers recommended a speed limit increase. State Police vetoed the change, preferring the 99% violation rate that let them write tickets at will. Police have no legal role in setting speed limits. Somebody in the Romney administration weighed the risk of losing ticket revenue against the risk of being blamed for accidents. Police won.

          After engineers lost that fight people began to worry about the high accident rate on Route 3. The state hired a consultant to do a Road Safety Audit. The consultantís report blamed the low speed limit, among other factors, for the high crash rate. The report explicitly recommended raising the speed limit.

          Three years later, state officials have not followed the advice of their engineers, their consultant, or 100,000 drivers per day. State police are still out there running speed traps and helping keep the road as dangerous and profitable as they can.

          Pretty system.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 10:08am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Woooosh! That is the sound of my point sailing over your head at about 65MPH.

            Nice attempt to deflect, but wow, you fail. Back to 8th grade history for you.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 10:13am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I'm complimenting how pretty the system is. Isn't it pretty?

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 11:05am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              You seem to believe everybody is in middle-school like you. Sorry son but if you keep tolling like that, I'll have no choice but to call your Principal and inform him you've been skipping classes again.

               

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 10:13am

          Re: Re: Re:


          It's the same reason why the speed limit is set at 65, even if the police won't write a ticket under 75. It's the same reason why we have jaywalking laws,
          which are only enforced occassionally (or in the case of an accident).




          Yes, overcriminalization is really great. I assume you like the state having the power to caste a wider net in order to catch the occasional bad actor, while leaving everyone's liberty up to the discretion of petty officials.


          If the speed limit was raised to 75, and police attempting to enforce it hard at 76, they would be thrown out of court



          If they could prove a violation, tell me how the court would have the power to dismiss the charge.

          If the RIAA sued me for sharing 15 songs with 10 friends, tell me how the court could distinguish illegal distribution over the internet from illegal distribution to a small circle of friends.

          If even friend to friend sharing is illegal, only judicial economy and prosecutorial discretion is the reason for not fearing the 'strawman'.

          The argument is not that enforcement of copyright law is now happening in a manner distructive of privacy, but that the *only realistic* way in which copyright enforcement to the extend permitted is going to be eeffective is destroying privacy.

          What you're arguing is actually close to the defense of sodomy laws not violating privacy.


          Tolerance is what makes the system great. Don't destroy it.


          No, the rule of law is what makes a free society.

          Privacy depends on the law, and if the law permits invasion of private communication merely for noncommercial copyright infringement, it's a power granted regardless of how often it's being exercised.

          I don't want my privacy having to depend on prosecutorial discretion when engaging an activity which is technically illegal even if the risk is near zero.



          Copyright enforcement should either be driven to its logical conclusion or limited to commercial infringement.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          btr1701 (profile), Oct 11th, 2011 @ 10:32am

          Re: Re: Re:

          > like the medical weed fiasco in California. What
          > seemed like a good idea has just turned in to a
          > way for dopeheads to get their drugs "legally"
          > by having all sorts of aches and pains that only
          > the weed doctors can "cure".

          I agree. It's nonsensical that we make people go through the charade of having to pretend to be sick in order to get the stuff. And I say that as someone who's never even so much as tried it.

          It's ridiculous that 'boozeheads' and 'nicoheads' can walk into a store and purchase their recreational drugs of choice, but 'dopeheads' have to jump through these silly hoops to do so.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 1:12pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            First off, remember that cigarettes are very likely to disappear "in our lifetime". The use of them is severely limited in many parts of the world today, and it won't be long before there will not be any public places left in which one can smoke.

            20 years ago, tobacco ads were everywhere, motor racing was awash in cigarette ads, and so on. They are getting more and more limits. The smoke companies are already moving themselves offshore, and at some point, someone in Washington will propose a law to severely limit or ban smoking altogether. It's something that has to happen, it's only a matter of time.

            Booze? Plenty of legal restrictions, and we still face an epidemic of drunk driving and deaths as a result.

            Weed? There is little to work with on the proof side that it is any more effective than other medications, and rather, it's consumption has worse effects than smoking cigs. If it was tested as a new FDA medication, it would be rejected outright because of it's dangerous side effects.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 2:18pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              There is little to work with on the proof side that it is any more effective than other medications, and rather, it's consumption has worse effects than smoking cigs.

              Seriously, what the fuck are you smoking? Or eating? Or vaporizing?

               

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

            •  
              icon
              btr1701 (profile), Oct 11th, 2011 @ 3:09pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              > Washington will propose a law to severely
              > limit or ban smoking altogether. It's something
              > that has to happen, it's only a matter of time.

              I'm sure the nanny-staters would love to do that. Hopefully someone will play them a few episodes of 'Boardwalk Empire', with the bootleggers raising toast after toast to Mr. Volstead, and they'll see the light.

              Or we could just flush another several billion dollars we don't have down the shithole in another useless attempt to ban the populace from doing something it wants to do.

              > Booze? Plenty of legal restrictions, and we
              > still face an epidemic of drunk driving and
              > deaths as a result.

              And yet it's still legal, while pot, with nowhere near the bloody history of carnage from its use is not. Hmmm...

               

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 11:41am


    If we spend less money on buying CD records, we spend more on something else, like for instance going to live concerts. This is great news for the artists. An artist will typically get 5-7% of the revenues from a CD record, but 50% of the revenues from a concert.

    What about the studio musicians how are they paid? What about musicians who are not performers but great recording artists nonetheless? If you like a song buy the song, I don't care if it's on physical media, or purchased from any one of the legal download sites, just BUY the song. That purchase pays royalties to alot of people who worked on the project.


    The record companies lose out, but this is only because they are no longer adding any value.

    The pirates have identified a nemesis and it is the record companies. This is really just propaganda, no one wants the record companies to go away, without them you would have fewer choices in music. And people may not like to admit it, but the record companies act as a filter for what is released, and sometimes that isn't a good thing, but I can assure you there are many many people who want to release music that have no talent.


    As far as record companies not adding value, consider this... Record companies provide a great deal of value to the recording artist - engineering, collaboration, post production, marketing, promotion, distribution (digital and physical media). For these services they obtain a portion of the profits, the size of that portion is determined by the individual contract signed by the artist. These artists are bound to these record companies because they needed help establishing themselves.

    The comparison to the hysteria over public libraries is laughable. Public libraries do not have unlimited copies of books which is the problem with rampant music/movie piracy.

    Everytime you illegally download a song you are adding fuel to the fire, you are providing yet another example for the RIAA to cite in its arguments against piracy.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 3:28pm

      Re:

      "What about the studio musicians how are they paid? What about musicians who are not performers but great recording artists nonetheless? If you like a song buy the song, I don't care if it's on physical media, or purchased from any one of the legal download sites, just BUY the song. That purchase pays royalties to alot of people who worked on the project."

      Paid by the hour like they are today?
      If you like a song pirate that song and spread it so others know where to find that website or store for that artist and can support him financially.

      There is no need for copyright.

      "The pirates have identified a nemesis and it is the record companies. This is really just propaganda, no one wants the record companies to go away, without them you would have fewer choices in music. And people may not like to admit it, but the record companies act as a filter for what is released, and sometimes that isn't a good thing, but I can assure you there are many many people who want to release music that have no talent."

      You are probably right, Jamendo after all is a record company a digital record company and people do use it and like it. People just don't like the incumbents.

      "The comparison to the hysteria over public libraries is laughable. Public libraries do not have unlimited copies of books which is the problem with rampant music/movie piracy."

      You know, what you said there was said 200 years ago and it didn't change a thing, if I copy pasted the debates of the 1800's you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
      Now about modern libraries, I grew up going to them and copying text by hand xerox machines where not that common, after a time they become ubiquitous and I could copy anything, I even asked the librarians to make some copies, I do recall my teacher using a mimeograph and the smell of alcohol from the paper was so nice. Today I just use a smartphone to photograph the thing and can store hundreds of books in one small device.

      If downloading a song is adding fuel to the fire, this world will burn.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    God, Oct 11th, 2011 @ 1:23pm

    Pardon MY Mistake with this one

    You are in IDIOT.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Vic, Oct 16th, 2011 @ 9:51pm

    'music' 'industry' oxymoron

    The music industry expects to see fourfold growth in the next couple of years, I was told by an insider. It won't come from sales of discrete units of music, though, but from the paraphernalia surrounding the music: promotions (of other brands) by artists, collaterals, etc, as well as new music units such as ringtones, played/listened to in non-traditional modes.

    The industry does not really care about piracy, therefore, but sees no problem in cooperation with increasingly coercive government processes.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Kasia, Jan 3rd, 2012 @ 10:12pm

    The issue is not copyright, it's the fact that these industries pushing copyright cannot adapt to a world with an Internet, where the "consumer" has real choice, where the competition for a big record label is an unsigned band, where the competition for the news is local amateur reporters who can have video online within seconds, and often report without the business friendly media bias we've all come to abhor. We need to take away the power these corporations have and let the market decide (which it has and to which copyright is moving against), and let these dinosaurs of capitalism collapse quickly and quietly.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Bobby Jacobson, Feb 26th, 2013 @ 9:29am

      Re: The issue is not copyright...

      you are right Kasia, now that the "buyer" has real choice in what to choose, they could buy what they wanted (in a way). but, there is a downside to that, like you said, companies fighting over a record label. -bobby :)

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Roger, Dec 9th, 2012 @ 9:15pm

    Until Fascism is no longer whatever is right of centre everyone will be a criminal and be in possession of contraband.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Bobby Jacobson, Feb 25th, 2013 @ 9:30am

    why file sharing is bad...

    file sharing is really bad for our government. It's bad because you could have access to prohibited files. no one likes another random person snooping around your stuff until they plan to black mail you, or expose you (in a bad way). Or their just looking around your stuff which they shouldn't be doing anyway. :) -Bobby

     

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

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Feb 25th, 2013 @ 10:03am

      Re: why file sharing is bad...

      file sharing is really bad for our government.

      By "file sharing" do you mean p2p networks, or people generally sharing files with each other? Because your concerns sound (I'm not totally sure I understand you) like they're related to security, and not to file sharing as the term is commonly used.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Bobby Jacobson, Feb 25th, 2013 @ 2:17pm

        Re: Re: why file sharing is bad...

        what I mean nasch, is that file sharing can be hazardous if you use it in the wrong ways. further more Nasch, it is sort of related to security issues also, because if someone were to hack you, and gain access to all your files, no one would really like that, now would they.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          nasch (profile), Feb 25th, 2013 @ 3:37pm

          Re: Re: Re: why file sharing is bad...

          it is sort of related to security issues also, because if someone were to hack you, and gain access to all your files, no one would really like that, now would they.

          Of course, that just has nothing to do with file sharing.

           

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

  •  
    identicon
    Bobby Jacobson, Feb 26th, 2013 @ 9:17am

    should we keep file sharing?

    I'm honestly not sure if we should keep file sharing or get rid of it. It's really at a stalemate in this particular topic. I'm not sure if any one agrees with me, but that's what my idea of thinking is on file sharing. -bobby :)

     

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


Add Your Comment

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

Close

Email This