The Myth That SOPA & PIPA Will Stop Infringement By 'Educating' The Public
from the educating-them-how-to-avoid-domestic-DNS dept
One of the key arguments we’ve heard about SOPA and PIPA in defending the fact that dedicated infringers will always find their way around the blocks to continue infringing, is that it’s really intended as an “educational” mechanism, based on the assumption that people going to certain “rogue sites” don’t know they’re rogue — but with a big DOJ banner, perhaps they’ll be educated. This has never made much sense, frankly. The entertainment industry has been betting its legacy business model for quite some time on the myth that all it takes is a little “education” to fix things. Multiple studies have shown that nothing is further from the truth. People who infringe know they’re infringing. And they still do it. Education won’t make a lick of difference.
DNS expert Paul Vixie is debunking this myth even further, by separating people into two groups: intended infringers (those who know what they’re doing breaks the law, but are still going to do it) and “unintented infringers” who don’t realize they’re breaking the law. As he notes, SOPA/PIPA are completely useless against the intended infringers, since they’ll always find easy ways around the blocks. So what about the unintended infringers? Well, he points to a recent study of college students, about their views on following internet policies. And the short summary is that they all break the policies anyway, for a variety of reasons — with a big reason being that, even if it’s against “policy” they just don’t believe they’re really doing anything wrong.
As Vixie notes, “from a high level policy perspective… we really can put “unintended infringer” into the “myth” category.” Kids aren’t lacking in education or morals or anything like that. They just don’t see what’s so wrong about accessing what the technology allows access to. If the industry hadn’t wasted so many years and so much money on legal tricks and lobbying for stricter copyright laws, and instead invested that money and effort into providing better legitimate and licensed services, those kids would have gladly jumped to those offerings. But the industry decided to go in the other direction…
Filed Under: copyright, education, myth, protect ip, sopa
Comments on “The Myth That SOPA & PIPA Will Stop Infringement By 'Educating' The Public”
“educate” them, you mean the way so many people on art sites are these days where they have this blind unquestioning faith & obedience towards copyright to the point of being like some sort of weird cult bordering on crack-addiction?
why, just the other day i was trying to explain to some people on a forum how copying isn’t stealing, talk about a waste of time
the common tactic is to immediately rush towards muddying the two together, bringing morality & “respect” into it and generally making the most confusing tangled mess anyone could ever find
why? the obvious reason is that most have of them have been trained to do this, if you “step out of line” you are chastised, harassed, humiliated & barred from all the popular hosting sites, it happened to me once, but i lie outside this cycle i can ignore it entirely, they cannot
it’s “education” through obligation out of fear, fear out of harsh punishment for not “following along” and getting in line like the copytards want you to
the only reason they can even stay in power is because of confusion, you try and clarify, they drag all this scrambled moral, word mixup bullshit into it
is this the “education” we really want for our country? learning to live in fear & confusion? being programmed to throw tantrums over spilt milk because they are so lost to the truth they can no longer tell the difference over a real problem and the one their superiors want them to perceive?
Re: Re:
all this talk & blabber over SOPA, i hope most people who complain about these laws realize they are only the shadow of the beast that has been with us for many years showing it’s true colors after so many years of confusion, denial & dishonesty
when it’s all said and done, will nobody notice the toxic cycle of self-sabotage, deliberate mixups & confusion, pointless restriction & fear artists must endure with this shitty system?
whether SOPA-opera passes or not, we’ll still have to deal with these POS laws and the cult that follows it
is there nowhere i can discuss that further? this site is more about tech, not art specifically, although it has been one of the only oasis in this desert of copyright worship
Re: Re:
Copying is stealing… it has always been stealing (you can’t copy a book and mass distribute it, you can’t copy a vhs and mass distribute it. These were firmly in the realm of illegal)… and the only people claiming it isn’t are those who engage in digital piracy.
Now when we bring in morality, that’s because this is a MORAL ARGUMENT.
You have no rational basis for saying that copying isn’t stealing; but you DO have arguments that people have said before, about how copying a car doesn’t hurt the car companies. (Of course, copying money is still illegal [though some people actually argue it isn’t]) that if everything is free you wouldn’t WANT to pay for anything (piracy is a lost sale as it reduces what people are willing to pay for content.)
It goes on and on; but they’re often easy to poke holes in… so we get down to morality.
You find no moral imperative towards “big business” and you may feel that you are fighting “injustice.”
So why shouldn’t “morality” be thrown in?
I mean, if you didn’t find it morally wrong to rape and kill women… why, we have people who ARE like that.
Or morally wrong to bring weapons on a plane, even knowing that it was illegal?
Or morally wrong to disobey the laws of society because you don’t feel like it.
I would like to say one other thing.
You /are/ the conformist. You’re taking the side of the many, the side that you have been TOLD to take. You’re believing that the extremes are the truth and that there is no middle ground. You hate outside groups and reject anyone who isn’t an exact copy of you…
I am the RADICAL. I’m the guy who is ignoring the majority to clearly say “I recognize that this is wrong, I may have, or still be, breaking the law. But I am willing to make amends, pay for what I have taken, and hope for a NEW tomorrow”
See, you’ve become a fascist :p
Re: Re: Re:
O Hai der blue!
Re: Re: Re:
No matter how much you might morally equate copyright infringement with stealing, they are not physically, practically, or legally the same thing.
You’re throwing out a bunch of red herrings, ootb. Copying money isn’t stealing or copyright infringement. It’s counterfeiting. Money isn’t a non-exclusive, infinitely reproducible product. It’s a currency. So it is not an analog for digital content and is irrelevant in this discussion, especially since no opponent of IP maximalism is suggesting that “copying” money is okay.
You have quite a lpersecution complex about this site, but you fail to see the context of your little idealistic stand. You claim that we’re fascists and give into peer pressure and do what we’re told, but you know nothing about the individual lives of the commenters on this site. You don’t why we violate copyright or if we even do. You don’t know if we’ve been conditioned to think that it’s morally okay or not. You just have your assumptions and your wild imagination to keep you warm at night.
I have my own sense of morality that I have developed over years of philosophy and ethics classes and discussions and experiences. That you think that you hold the moral high ground here and come here to proudly tell us that is only a sign of how desperate you are for attention. A truly righteous man needs not proclaim his own righteousness, but will be recognized by those around him.
Re: Re: Copying is stealing... it has always been stealing
Stealing is a crime. If people are stealing from you, why don?t you call the cops?
If you find a shoplifter in your shop, do you call in your lawyers? Get them to file a cease-and-desist against the shoplifter, and threaten them with a lawsuit if they don?t stop? Maybe try to get the bus company to stop giving them rides to your shop, or ban them from the public transport system altogether?
No, you do none of these things, you call the cops, and let the cops throw the book at the perp, probably put them in jail.
Why don?t you do this for copyright infringement, then? Because it?s not ?stealing?, that?s why!
So fucking shut up about fucking ?stealing?, already.
Re: Re: Re:
That is a lovely set of nonsequiters.
As an artist, Copyright does not protect me. I cannot afford a lawyer to enforce it. But I can work around it and most people will at least give me credit.
As an artist, SOPA does not protect me, and may hinder me because a single, bogus copyright claim can practically shut down my website thanks to the addition of third party liability. With the DMCA, I at least have a shot at fixing the problem. Under SOPA, I’m screwed.
Morally, I’m going with the side where I’m not getting hosed for things that I didn’t do.
Re: Re: Re:
“COPYING = STEALING”
COPY: Means to get the item and make an exact replica. Now you have 1 and I keep mine. No loss, gain for both.
STEAL: I take the item away from you. You lose the stuff, I get the stuff.
It’s the definition of the USA law that attemps to make them equal, when not even the dictionaries consider them synonyms.
The moral argument happens when you declare who is the AUTHOR or the art piece created. If you copy the stuff while saying “X person (the REAL author) did it, I’m just passing it around because I think it’s cool and you should check it out” you are already making one hell of a deal there for the artist because you are making free-marketing for him without asking a single penny in return. There is no moral harm because you are not self-declaring yourself as the creator. Yet in the argument, they are trying to extend the so-called moral harm to even just copying the work without thinking what is the next thing you will do.
Morally wrong to disobey the laws? Actually, the very USA forged itself by disobeying the laws (see the Revolution and fight for Independence). But to finally disobey them with a good purpose and reason, first there is an stage called “criticism”. You have to be critic of the laws in a constructive way, see which ones are useful to society (like the ones who punish rapes, murdering, child abuse and/or pornography, mass genocide) and the ones who really tax the society and it’s progress (Patents, Copyright, the upcoming SOPA/PIPA, the PATRIOT Act). It’s after that when you can say: “hell, how did these laws come into first place?” or “isn’t there a way to improve the law to make it more benefical to society as a whole?” or “this law should disappear and other laws should support the possibility of not ever allowing something similar to it in any other wording, style or context”.
I think that you /are/ actually the conformist because you take the laws you currently have in an almost religious way in your comment without even analyzing why those laws are in the first place or if they are morally coherent. I’ve heard people criticizing laws that are set in other countries, but do not ask themselves if their current laws are good enough or should be improved. That’s actually the part of criticism that is missing a lot lately, is important in any kind of democracy, and is being recovered in the Web 2.0, which is also indirectly yet really endangered right now by SOP?/PIPA.
Re: Re: Re:
No, it isn’t, and hasn’t. See there? I directly copied your quote. I didn’t “steal” anything.
Please show me where, in *ANY* country’s legal code dealing with theft/larceny/stealing – explicitly where copying is covered by the same statute. Please quote the country, the statute number or directive, and a brief quote that mentions copying.
You can’t drive 70 in a 50 zone. So this is obviously stealing as well, right?
Running a red light – that’s illegal, so it must be stealing too, right?
Killing someone? That must also be stealing, right?
Cheating on your wife in the 1800s – stealing?
Marrying two or more people simultaneously – stealing?
Just because something is illegal doesn’t make it “stealing”.
No. *You* have no rational basis for saying that copying *is* stealing.
You’re just an idiot. Please stop.
Re: Re: Re:
Your skewed idea on stealing is really bizarre.
In your worldview, stealing would mean that there’d be more of the same product after the fact.
Meanwhile in reality:
Stealing: I own a pig. You steal the pig, you have the pig, I don’t have the pig anymore. There is still only 1 pig in total.
Copying: I own a pig. You copy the pig. You have the pig, and I have the pig. So now there are 2 pigs instead of 1.
Every time we sit down to watch a movie the first thing we see is a threat of imprisonment. This doesn’t seem to stop piracy even though everyone is being “educated” about the penalties.
Too much “education” causes people to tune out and ignore the thing they are being “educated” for.
Re: Threat of Imprisonment
Every time you sit down for a movie, the first thing you see is threat of imprisonment. When I sit down for a movie, the movie starts.
Hi. I’m the “uneducated, disrespectful, immoral thief” who is convinced that downloading a movie for free is the best way to watch. Does anyone care to convince me to pay for the FBI warning version?
Re: Re:
I don’t see those things anymore, every time I get a DVD(I don’t have a Bluray and don’t want one) the first thing I do is to rip the movie and take out those warnings and ads, I go so far as to re-author the DVD and make a brand new ISO file with the original video only and the extras.
You see when you don’t have to reencode the video and audio data only the filesystem it takes just minutes to do it.
Re: Re:
Last night I sat down with the family to watch a BluRay disc, the amount of warnings and promos before the actual movie started, wasted almost a half hour of our time.
I have been thinking along the same lines lately Suja.
After camping out on Creative Americas lawn for the last few months there seems to be a substantive dislocation from, not only reality, but the bigger issue here.
We need to, as a collective, kill all the lobbyist for starters.
It’s interesting that I am sort of a hippie at heart but I can’t remember being so completely outraged by something in my entire life. Certainly to the point I actually do something about it.
I think part of my issue is that I frankly can’t fathom what big content thinks its going to accomplish here except pissing people off.
FFS all they had to do was throw up a freaking server or two and call it a day. With a bit of p2p technology their problems are solved. They would rather throw literally billions of dollars at folks so they don’t have to actually do any work.
The US is in a sad state of affairs right now. Someone seriously needs to kick Chris Dodd in the balls but, unfortunately, that he assumes he has a pair. Conventional wisdom would dictate otherwise.
Nigel
Re: Re:
“I think part of my issue is that I frankly can’t fathom what big content thinks its going to accomplish here except pissing people off.”
It is not big content, it is big content’s lobbyists. There is a disconnect between the lawyers big content pays to do its lobbying and the companies. We saw that this week with the US CoC and people walking away from SOPA. This is another example of how middle men actually screw things up.
Re: Re:
One of the best things this world could have right now is a sort of forum that is a combination of Techdirt & Question Copyright .com that’s all it focuses on, these types of issues exactly.
There is like almost nowhere except here & the occasional pirate site to talk nothing else except these issues, they really are a big problem.
The last nail in the coffin for me was trying to upload a crossover youtube poop that just happened to have a couple spongebob clips in it. From what i’ve read viacom don’t care about YTPs only full episodes, well this wasn’t a full episode, not in the slightest, doesn’t matter since blocker bots can’t tell the difference anyway.
Seems like a small thing compared to the other vast of utter bullshit these laws have caused, but sometimes it only takes a pin needle to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Re: Re: Re:
replying to articles are fine and dandy but i’d very much like a place where i could open threads & stuff on specific subjects
the whole entire rest of the internet caters to copyright worship, where where is the one and only place that offers a safe haven for those who are tired of it to talk about it (that isn’t restricted to replying to articles)
everywhere else except here & those other places i describe i am quickly trolled, insulted & censored (banned/deleted) for speaking out about it
do i have to make one? cause if that’s what i’m gonna have to do i will do it…
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t know where you’re posting…
but 90% of the internet is pro-piracy. It is harder to find people who support copyright enforcement than people who believe that it’s bs.
But take a moment to ask yourself:
If people have been uploading full episodes so often that content is now being automatically blocked for having any amount of copyrighted material in it… who is at fault.
The people who continually broke the law,
or those who tried to enforce it.
It’s BS that YOU have to suffer because piracy is so rampant that bots filter out copyrighted material! I mean, if those bloody pirates would just grow up and stop uploading their Sponge Bob episodes, I could have my YTP uploaded! This is an outrage.
This has been your friendly troll, showing you the other side of the argument. Goodbye!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The other side? That’s nothing but the baseless ranting of a fool that hasn’t the foggiest idea what they are talking about. You make hefty claims that have no factual backing and then launch from that to make even more unsupportable claims. Try something other than wild speculation and outright falsehoods next time.
Who’s at fault? The content producers are at fault. They somehow think that they can censor anything because it clashes with their desire to control content for the purpose of profit. I don’t recall anywhere in the constitution that says the profits of a few entitled piss-ants take priority over the first amendment. Yes, I said the first amendment. Copyrighted or not, communication of all kinds is the natural right of every thinking being, as it is every free man’s right to communicate whatever information he wishes to convey to society. Ideas and knowledge must spread to other minds to live. An idea never shared is an idea that never existed.
Nice try OOTB, but I can see the bat-shit crazy logic in your comments.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
but 90% of the internet is pro-piracy.
A few responses. Choose whichever you like:
1) Because there’s no other way to get the content in a quick and convenient format.
2) If 90% really is against copyright, then the law is wrong and needs to be changed.
3) Proof that “education” is a completely useless waste of resources.
4) Wow, that’s a huge number of untapped customers waiting for the right service to come along. Why aren’t the content industries trying to make billions of dollars by coming up with the right service? Why haven’t their stockholders lynched them for their complete and utter failure?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
90% don’t like the law and don’t respect it, wow!
I always thought we lived in a democracy but apparently when only 10% can tell the other 90% how they should behave that can’t possibly be democracy now can it?
Quote:
I say it is the content owners fault for being unable to cater to the public, for having relied heavily on legal crutches that have been taken away from it and now show how useless they always were, they spent hundreds of years on something useless and now it became apparent, just how much of the market they left behind, because before they were in the dark the internet merely put a light on that behavior, people were communicating before the internet more slowly, but they never stopped communicating and sharing and now some get scared at the true volume of that communication and it is not even all of it, the internet have 10 times more content than what it appears on search engines and some people truly believe they can stop that?
Yah right.
This just proves that nobody and I mean nobody will ever accept a monopoly no matter how you dress that thing up.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“but 90% of the internet is pro-piracy.”
[citation needed]
Re: Re:
Well said! Politicians have always been bought by the power elite all through history. They will pass their law and life will go on until one day and I will love to be there to see it. I love the “Kill all the lobbyist for starters part”… Insightful.
Re: Re:
I can see him being tarred & feathered like the good old days.
To pull a Godwin's here with out reason ...
Even Hitler Hates SOPA
Re: To pull a Godwin's here with out reason ...
LOL too funny & spot on, why doesn’t that video have atleast 10,000 views?
Re: Re: To pull a Godwin's here with out reason ...
I really do not know about the 10k views. I lucked upon it on a random, almost unread, blog. Being German it does a stress humor thing for me and thought I would share.
So here it is again Hitler rant on SOPA
Re: Re: To pull a Godwin's here with out reason ...
Does now. 25k views.
Re: To pull a Godwin's here with out reason ...
While I normally find those Hitler videos funny, and I’m anti-SOPA, I don’t find that video funny.
Re: Re: To pull a Godwin's here with out reason ...
(that video is actually sad. It’s sad that our government is so bought).
Re: Re: Re: To pull a Godwin's here with out reason ...
yeah i agree it was depressing
Re: Re: Re:2 To pull a Godwin's here with out reason ...
It was a true state of affairs …
Re: Re: To pull a Godwin's here with out reason ...
I don’t think that one was supposed to be funny.
Re: To pull a Godwin's here with out reason ...
The officer’s reaction at “no memes” is pure gold.
Hitler is on our side now? 🙂
Nicely done but ideally reversed should SOPA fall.
Okay, this is Bupkis.
People ARE uneducated and they CAN be forced to realize that Infringement is infringement.
Let’s start with YouTube.
Now, someone may realize that “they’re not suppose to” dub in a copyrighted song and upload it. But they don’t realize that it is “morally wrong”.
In fact, people have made EXTENSIVE arguments that they OWN the song once they buy the CD. They’ve argued that they’re promoting the artist (even if they don’t reference said artist). They argue that a copy never hurt anyone.
What they never argue is whether it is right or wrong. (Though now I’m seeing arguments saying that if YouTube doesn’t have all this pirated material on it that they’ll take down the government.)
Let’s take a look at another example:
A kid at school is “getting high” and offers you some drugs, do you
A) Remember that your parents told you that drugs are wrong
B) Give into peer pressure
If you chose A, you were lying! B is an extreme problem to parents because of how influential the opinions of other people can be on your own.
And another argument that pops up is “I bet you’re pirating something right now.” Piracy has gotten to the point where open discussion over what you’re currently stealing is considered normal. People act like it’s “the good fight” and that they’re rebels.
So this whole fascist movement going on, where people are no longer thinking about the MORALITY of their actions, but going on the fervent belief that what they’re doing is the norm… I mean, there are many subcultures devoted to piracy, and these are influencing how other people think.
So we can’t destroy these subcultures, we can’t stop peer pressure… but we can remove the “taboo” around it… and actually (correctly) point at sites like thepiratebay and say “You exist solely to promote piracy and you and your users will be punished”.
We can ENFORCE the beliefs we’re talking about. We can MOLD the minds of others.
A notice saying “Your attempt to access “thepiratebay” has been logged” would drive MANY people away from piracy.
CONSEQUENCES, previously they never existed.
What people need to realize is that this isn’t a RATIONAL argument, people who advocate piracy do so very poorly. It’s a MORAL argument, and morality is harder to address.
Re: Re:
“moral argument”? sure
copyright isn’t a “moral” concept, it is an artificial (and poorly constructed) method of constricting & controlling a crucial part of human nature: copying, with a couple of references to artists attached here and there to try and divert people’s attention away from the real deal (thank you entertainment industry for that one *rolleyes*)
the more time people spend in moral morasses the less they understand the actual problem
the problem here is that there is no problem, only something not going certain people’s way, culture & the people who copy or pirate it is the weather, it does not care about man’s desire for control, there is very little moral about it, only what people have devised as moral but what is actually misunderstanding based around fear: fear of losing control
to control the weather (culture) might seem a good idea… if you want to have alot of power, but it only serve to hinder, damage and destroy many vast ecosystems, possibly forever, crippling whatever you actually get to reside over
people don’t see these things, they only see the very shallow margin of an artificial problem based around an artificial right, they don’t see the actual harm it does to nature: human nature
so when one speaks of morality regarding copyright, they need not look any further than the very thing they combine it with, between the silliness, crippling & frighteningly corrupt, often hostile nature of some of the supporters, i don’t think there is any more of a better example of something more immoral
but what do i know, if you beat a dog enough times you can get it to do just anything you want it to do, even eat it’s own shit, of course the only reason it’s doing so is to avoid getting beaten again, but that’s good enough for person who wants it to do so
Re: Re: Re:
Your argument is in part “I’ve heard people mention morality so many times that I’m sick of it… it has nothing to do with the argument and is used only to confuse people”.
But you REALLY don’t understand that MY argument is
“People don’t obey laws that they don’t care about”
That’s morality.
I mean… ugg… Do you not know the definition of morality? (I know, a bit ad hominem but)
Morality is the artificial constraints placed on a society.
You are taught that fighting is wrong… but does that make fighting wrong? NO!
You are taught that infringing copyright is wrong… but this doesn’t make piracy wrong.
I mean, say all you want over how much money is being made off of you… but that is a JUSTIFICATION, not an argument.
Fighting is wrong, except when you get hit first… then beat the crap out of the kid.
I really doubt you’ll understand, but your argument is also states “My morality is different than ‘big corporations’ morality and they shouldn’t force their morality upon me”
*Of course, even little corporations get pirated*
You feel that people shouldn’t be taught something is wrong, rather they should… just be all anarchy I guess. I mean, you’ve even argued that being arrested for breaking the law is bad because it forces people to live in fear. (Of course, a pedophile can also make people live in fear… and their morality is that little kids make good sex toys)
Sure, I’m obfuscating things now, throwing in my morality while debating how you’re arguing about morality. But you have to realize that you ARE arguing about morality.
You ARE arguing that something is right or wrong because of “personal beliefs”.
So if I argue that it’s wrong because of MY “personal beliefs” and you can’t offer a single REAL bit of evidence that copying won’t hurt anyone… well, I should have every right to do so.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What really makes me angry is people like you hiding behind children to justify your own interests, have you no shame, you are not different from any pedophile rapist, you are just a different kind of rapist, instead of sexual molestation you would force children to work for you to get what you want.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright infringement is not morally wrong. You’re just living with this concrete operational mindset that “illegal = wrong”. Infringement is illegal, period. It is actually morally superior to freely share ideas and knowledge because that’s what truly promotes the progress of the arts and sciences (the thing copyright and patent is supposed to do). It was a few greedy people that twisted copyright into a business model. It was intended to serve as an incentive for artists to create more art so that it could be added to the wealth of the public domain.
You only think it’s wrong because it blows apart a monopoly that is just too good to give up. A monopoly that nobody should have. It is completely feasible to still make a living as an artist without selling one copy. There are many untapped revenue streams that are ignored because a monopoly is just too easy and too profitable. There is no excuse for this. Every day the copyright industry demands more and more protection for their monopolies that encroach more and more on our natural rights. There is no excuse for this.
It is not immoral to copy and share works, it’s quite the opposite. What you call infringement built the infrastructure of modern civilization. Your ignorance knows no bounds.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Sitting here and arguing with the trolls is worthless. They only come here to distract from the issue.
What we should be arguing is, should copyright exist at all? In what form? and how long before it goes into the public domain?
That is a christmas gift for everyone here.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Thanks for the splash in the face. I was distracted.
Should it exist at all? My feeling is that it shouldn’t. There are plenty of ways to profit from art that has nothing to do with controlling and selling copies. There is one overall fact that I keep bringing up, which is that it takes labor to make art. So why don’t they sell their labor directly and avoid this whole mess of trying to force people to pay for every copy? The way I see it is if you need $100K to make an original work (costs and salary included), then your project should cost $100K. You find ways to make it favorable for people to throw $100K at your project. After it’s made, it’s public domain which subsequently can be distributed across the internet on the fans’ bandwidth (Yay! Free advertising!) to spread awareness of this artist whether they are good or bad.
So as an artist, I find an audience that wants to pay me to make the initial work for them. I make it worth their while to fund the project (through special access, added value features, etc.) and when I finish it, it goes to the public for free (but not free because I was already paid what I thought was a fair price). This requires a bit more work on my behalf compared to your typical copyright industry corporation, because it requires me to maintain an open dialog and sustained relationship with my/our fans. This is all very feasible, but few are willing to do it because a government granted monopoly is much easier and profitable.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I actually believe that copyright should only be useful for naming you as the author of certain piece of art, and it’s distribution/reshaping always points back to the author… You keep the right of authorship but not monopolistic ownership once you release “the art” for exhibition.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
That’s not a bad idea.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
That has to be the most retarded idea I’ve ever heard. It can definitely work for SMALL-TIME productions since they have less people to pay, but please tell me how someone like a popular game dev that has to pay hundreds of employees (plus art contractors) can expect to get the budget they need in order to produce a great quality game…from DONATIONS. Take a game like mass effect (the first one) for example, which took about 3 or 4 years to make. That shit doesn’t happen on 100k, or even a million. Not when you consider the labor and equipment costs for that many years.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Fighting is wrong, except when you get hit first… then beat the crap out of the kid.”
I guess they shouldn’t have broke their agreement with the public then when they extended copywrong terms.
That is what you are saying right? They broke agreement, now we can pummel them.
Re: Re: Re:
I can easily think of many things that are a crucial part of human nature, and yet our laws decree them to be unlawful. What it seems to me you are really promoting is that “copying” and “distributing” are somehow entitled to different treatment.
Re: Response to: NothingReally on Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 7:16pm
Maybe you should think about the molding of your own mind, and leave the minds of others alone.
And while you’re at it, educate yourself on the legal concept of Fair Use, and SOPA’s enforcing of that aspect of copywrite law. Congratulations on being a teacher whose class I would gladly skip and fail out of without a shred of regret.
I have zero respect for self styled teachers who shovel ignorance down the throats of others, no matter what claim to moral authority they cite.
I also recommend you “educate” yourself on the historical record of what happens when access to information is controlled by a few…history is replete with examples for your studying pleasure.
Meanwhile, if your conscience says something is immoral, don’t do it. But don’t force your convictions on others who don’t share them. Unless you’re really ready to put a gun to someone’s head to make them obey SOPA’s rule.
Rule of law is only as good, just, and right as the motives of law maker and law enforcer. SOPA is a social engineering project, not a genuine attempt to protect Anyone or Anything. It is a power grab.
Re: Response to: NothingReally on Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 7:16pm
Maybe you should think about the molding of your own mind, and leave the minds of others alone.
And while you’re at it, educate yourself on the legal concept of Fair Use, and SOPA’s enforcing of that aspect of copywrite law. Congratulations on being a teacher whose class I would gladly skip and fail out of without a shred of regret.
I have zero respect for self styled teachers who shovel ignorance down the throats of others, no matter what claim to moral authority they cite.
I also recommend you “educate” yourself on the historical record of what happens when access to information is controlled by a few…history is replete with examples for your studying pleasure.
Meanwhile, if your conscience says something is immoral, don’t do it. But don’t force your convictions on others who don’t share them. Unless you’re really ready to put a gun to someone’s head to make them obey SOPA’s rule.
Rule of law is only as good, just, and right as the motives of law maker and law enforcer. SOPA is a social engineering project, not a genuine attempt to protect Anyone or Anything. It is a power grab.
Re: Re: Response to: NothingReally on Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 7:16pm
You do realize that “fair use” is a very heated area… but what most people consider “fair use” isn’t what the law considers “fair use.” (What you get for being a flunkie :p)
Now-a-days “fair use” is synonymous with “subpar piracy” in the publics eye. Where Hollywood would call up for even a 30 second clip of a movie… the public says “fair use” and includes a 3 min clip. 3min becomes 10, which soon becomes the whole movies with only minor changes.
Now obviously hollywood is selling something… and you are giving it away for free… but there are people profiting from your piracy. The Content Host (youtube).
See, the non-commercial aspect was drafted on the idea of SMALL SCALE. But now 60 different people can upload 1 3min clip of a movie to create the entire movie. They can each claim “fair use” but the reality is the QUANTITY of distribution and the ease of joining the pieces together were something that only “for profit” corporations were capable of.
Consider, 15 years ago people’s morality was different than it is today… this “pro-piracy anti-government” movement is NEW… it may encompass most of the nation, but it can still be reversed.
If the internet is akin to the bank having the vault wide open and saying “We trust you to take only what is yours”… people do so for a while, but eventually they get it in their minds that they can take things that aren’t theirs and (as the vault magically replenishes) persuade others that what they are doing isn’t wrong.
SOPA simply says “enough is enough, the banks vaults are closed” of course you’ll have people who want to get back into the vault… but a shift in morality is what caused the rampant theft… and a shift in morality can bring it back under control.
Re: Re: Re: Response to: NothingReally on Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 7:16pm
If you want to “close the vault” then close the vault. Don’t blow up the roads, don’t break the windows, don’t cut power to the whole town. Close the vault.
Piracy is wrong. Many, in fact most of the people against SOPA aren’t pro-piracy. SOPA just plain does not work. It does very little to directly address piracy. It does nothing to the foreign sites themselves. It does not a darn thing to the vast majority of pirated content, foreign customer getting content from a foreign source.
What SOPA does do is disrupt internet traffic in the United States and impose an undue burden on internet businesses and enterprises starting and based here in the US. All this will do is drive the tech sector overseas. There is also the whole attack on due process and free speech and a slew of legal and constitutional issues. Piracy is a crime, but this country was founded on certain core principles, due process being one of them.
When confronted with these very real concerns, the typical SOPA supporter falls back to the only thing they have. “Piracy is wrong.”
Yes piracy is wrong. Most crimes are wrong. Get evidence, build a case, and take the criminal to justice. But that’s not enough for the MPAA and RIAA. They want to be judge jury and executioner.
That’s not American. That’s anti-American. That flies in the face of everything that we as a nation believe in.
Their response “Piracy is wrong.”, just like a broken record.
A broken record about a botched bill by a broken industry.
Re: Re: Re: Response to: NothingReally on Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 7:16pm
Quote:
Rubbish, 15 years ago everybody was making mixtapes, who never gave a mixCD to a girlfriend or a friend?
Heck 30 years ago 3M was making millions in profits selling recording media or you are going to say that all of those VHS tapes that were sold where only used for legal purposes?
I do remember very vividly radio stations announcing “1 hour uninterrupted programming” what do you think that was for?
Every music buff was pressing rec+play+pause waiting to start.
Re: Re: Re: Response to: NothingReally on Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 7:16pm
The internet is a communication medium, do you think people didn’t communicate before? they didn’t share it before?
The internet is a light, it showed how that behavior was spread and how it happens, just because you don’t like it it doesn’t mean it will stop, because to stop communicating is to stop wealth creation.
Re: Re: Re: Response to: NothingReally on Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 7:16pm
Quote:
SOPA says lets put our feet inside our mouths and be happy.
Communications can’t be stopped without having very real bad consequences to humanity and anyone who believes they can be surgical about it is just a delusional fool.
Re: Re: Re: Response to: NothingReally on Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 7:16pm
Now-a-days “fair use” is synonymous with “subpar piracy” in the publics eye. Where Hollywood would call up for even a 30 second clip of a movie… the public says “fair use” and includes a 3 min clip. 3min becomes 10, which soon becomes the whole movies with only minor changes.
I don’t think you understand fair use very well. It isn’t based solely on the amount of the work copied. A small excerpt could be infringement, and copying the entire work could be fair use.
Re: Re:
Define piracy and why is bad again.
Monopolies are bad, why destroying a monopoly is bad again?
Re: Re:
What people need to realize is that this isn’t a RATIONAL argument, people who advocate piracy do so very poorly. It’s a MORAL argument, and morality is harder to address.
No. Morality is easy to address and we’ve done so at length for many years.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061115/020157.shtml
Or, more recently and in more detail:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111129/03463216918/morality-non-zero-sum-games-externalities-why-someone-profiting-off-your-work-isnt-bad-thing.shtml
Re: Re: Re:
I just realized, we’ve been discussing this stuff with those copyright trolls for more than 6 years on this site.
(2005 is my earliest post), And we’re getting absolutely nowhere.
Still they offer the same lame and false excuses (Copyright is a moral issue? Infringement is stealing? Bitch, please, you used those same excuses 6 years ago already, and it was false then and it is false now.), and still they offer nothing worth of any value to the discussion.
We’ve had OOTB’s, and other copyright defending Anonymous Cowards since the beginning, I think. And look where that has brought us.
All we are getting are poorly worded, poorly envisioned, poorly researched, and Big Media sponsored laws that don’t do anything, except harm our basic rights all so that the big media houses can preserve their idea of the golden age.
Desperately clinging on to that old way of doing things, because that used to rake in the money.
We should look at how we can change things, and ignore the trolls. Offer an alternative law, perhaps. Though given that it’s always a game of compromise, I’d suggest we go for complete abolishment of copyright, and then get it negotiated to about 10 years of protection.
Re: Re:
Now, someone may realize that “they’re not suppose to” dub in a copyrighted song and upload it. But they don’t realize that it is “morally wrong”.
Because it isn’t, simply because there is no harm whatsoever for the original artist. There could even be promotional value in it and I don’t see anyone complaining about that.
Thanks for adding a bit of clarity Hephaestus (god of fire?)
I am not sure I totally follow your point though. The MPAA basically wrote SOPA, so it’s their talking points. They pay lobbyists and make political donations to ram through said legislation.
I caught the post here earlier about lawyers coming out against this.
MPAA will not innovate(distribute logically)and pays a bunch of folks to do a wide range of nefarious shit. Are they not big content?
Disclaimer: I did not have time today to suss out those law firms/lawyers to see who was doing what for Hollywood.
Still stumped on a few points though. I completely retooled my business after I read the initial post about Creative America here. I would already be killing it but the folks involved in the first short film I am going to market are so freaking busy doing creative stuff for NBC I have not had the opportunity to wrap up it all up before I send it out to the world.
Curiously, and I could be wrong, my estimate for sticking said 22 minute flick in front of millions is like 40 dollars US lol…
My point is, and I think Mike summed it up pretty well at some point, by saying something to the effect that “until I see something other than BS stats I fail to see the issue”
I tend to agree, there is no issue here for Hollywood less the ones they create by doing stupid shit.
Nigel
” So what about the unintended infringers? Well, he points to a recent study of college students, about their views on following internet policies.”
First off, the break down is not correct, as it really isn’t the break down. Almost everyone knows that piracy is wrong, many of them don’t care. College students (the fodder of Techdirt)are most likely to be idealistic in their choices, not pragmatic.
The real question is those who intentionally go out to infringe (the “I’m not paying hollywood for this shit that I want so much”), versus the casual pirate (“Why should I pay Hollywood for this when I can get it for free?”).
The idea of any law against piracy isn’t to stop piracy, that is a strawman. The idea is to make piracy hard enough that, regardless of the choices Mr Vixie discusses, that the casual pirate decides it’s cheaper, easier, and less of a hassle and risk to just join Netflix and be done with it.
It’s about moving people from illegal sources to legal sources.
Any other attempt to “move the goal posts” is creating a strawman.
Re: Re:
There should probably be more legal sources then. Wouldn’t that make sense? “Build it and they will come.” I heard that once, can’t seem to remember where.
Re: Re:
Almost everyone knows that piracy is wrong, many of them don’t care.
Citation needed.
Re: Re: Re:
Lol. Ask any one of your friends (or better yet, start a poll on yahoo answers like I did…GREAT way to get honest answers from freetards who just don’t give a fuck!) and ask people why they pirate. I don’t know about you, but pretty much all of my friends and the people on YA said they do it because they get out of paying for things. Yes, a few said they always buy from the small time acts who need the money, but the vast majority of them literally said stuff along the lines of “I don’t give a fuck if they lose money, all that matters to me is not having to pay for something and still getting to own it.” Yes, an act SHOULD be performing live and selling extra goodies like t-shirts and whatnot, but you need to have money FIRST to invest in both of those things. If they can’t get that money from sales or kickstarter/gofundme projects, they can’t exactly pull it out of their ass!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And how many of them said “I know it’s wrong, but I do it anyway”? Because that’s what you claimed. “I don’t care if they make money” isn’t the same as “I know it’s wrong”. I know in label execs’ heads it’s the same, but not in reality.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Of course albums wouldn’t be $16…where the hell did I say that they would? Never implied that prices wouldn’t have gone down. What WOULD have been different though, is that people probably wouldn’t have the “entertainment is free” mindset had all these companies acted quicker and released their own version of what the pirates were doing. But NO. Because they had to drag their feet and bitch to congress to try and get their way, now a LOT of people today would probably laugh at the idea of buying anything except the device to play things on. But if entertainment ever truly DOES become 100% free, you guys are in for a surprise…see if you like your free entertainment when it’s all unskilled hobbyists and random people on youtube because all the professionals that made the actually good stuff had to get other jobs.
“I don’t care if they make money” isn’t the same as “I know it’s wrong”
That’s some mighty fine logic you have there! If someone takes a product like an artist’s print or a video game, and illegally obtains it for free to get out of paying for it, please tell me how that isn’t wrong. Because the creator (read: person trying to sell PRODUCTS, not give away freebies) does NOT get their payment when people decide to be a freetard.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
What WOULD have been different though, is that people probably wouldn’t have the “entertainment is free” mindset had all these companies acted quicker and released their own version of what the pirates were doing.
I agree, many more people would be paying customers.
But if entertainment ever truly DOES become 100% free, you guys are in for a surprise…see if you like your free entertainment when it’s all unskilled hobbyists and random people on youtube because all the professionals that made the actually good stuff had to get other jobs.
You are assuming, incorrectly, that the only way to make money creating entertainment is by selling copies of the entertainment.
That’s some mighty fine logic you have there!
A does not imply B? Yeah, that’s pretty much unassailable.
If someone takes a product like an artist’s print or a video game, and illegally obtains it for free to get out of paying for it, please tell me how that isn’t wrong.
Ideas of right and wrong vary within a culture. You clearly find it wrong, and many many others, particularly younger people, do not.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“You are assuming, incorrectly, that the only way to make money creating entertainment is by selling copies of the entertainment.”
No I’m not. If people get used to having things like music for free, it’s reasonable to assume that the pressure would be on to lower prices for tickets to live shows and merch since people are already used to not paying a lot. If some people can’t make enough money doing that no matter how much cwf+rtb they do, they simply won’t stay and will change jobs. THAT is what I meant.
“Ideas of right and wrong vary within a culture. You clearly find it wrong, and many many others, particularly younger people, do not.”
Lol. I’m 19…age has nothing to do with what’s right and wrong. You wouldn’t just waltz on in to a store and illegally take a product for free, so I don’t see why it’s any different on the internet. Both situations involve getting out of paying for it. The only reason why people do it though is that the internet way (for some reason) has no consequences at all, even though the industry bitches about piracy. Can’t blame people for trying it if they know nothing will happen to them. But I’m willing to bet that if people knew they would get a fine+retail price for everything they pirated, their freetard ways would stop pretty quick!
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
If people get used to having things like music for free, it’s reasonable to assume that the pressure would be on to lower prices for tickets to live shows and merch since people are already used to not paying a lot.
You misunderstand why the price of music has dropped, then. People didn’t just randomly get used to low prices, low prices happened because music became infinitely reproducible at zero cost, which it wasn’t before. This is not true of concert seats or merchandise. If there is a downward pressure on the prices of those, it’s just because there are a lot of people trying to make money with music. If you’re trying to make a living in a crowded market, guess what – it’s going to be rough. That’s true whether there’s piracy or not.
Lol. I’m 19…age has nothing to do with what’s right and wrong.
You don’t think there’s a correlation between age and attitudes toward file sharing?
You wouldn’t just waltz on in to a store and illegally take a product for free, so I don’t see why it’s any different on the internet.
Are you ****ing ****ting me? You’re 19 and you don’t know the difference between shoplifting and copyright infringement? Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster.
But I’m willing to bet that if people knew they would get a fine+retail price for everything they pirated, their freetard ways would stop pretty quick!
Probably, but what does that have to do with reality?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
“You misunderstand why the price of music has dropped, then. People didn’t just randomly get used to low prices, low prices happened because music became infinitely reproducible at zero cost, which it wasn’t before. This is not true of concert seats or merchandise.”
I understand why the price dropped. Never said I didn’t. All I did say is that if artists did what people on this site wanted them to do, (give away the music to promote concerts and other stuff) it would be reasonable to say that they would probably expect the price of everything else to drop since they are already getting the core product for free.
“You don’t think there’s a correlation between age and attitudes toward file sharing?”
Please. People of all ages take part in file sharing. Even my parents used napster (yes, I know that WAS a long time ago…lol) to get out of paying for their music. You don’t need to be a certain age to know right from wrong.
“Are you ****ing ****ting me? You’re 19 and you don’t know the difference between shoplifting and copyright infringement? Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster.”
Don’t be a jackass. People know damn well what they are doing when they pirate something. They are getting out of paying for a product. Funny how if you were to illegally obtain a product in a store, where a name and face can be attached to the thief, it’s wrong. But when it’s over the internet where people are unknown and know there are no consequences, all of a sudden it’s different. It doesn’t matter what route you go…you are still illegally obtaining a product to get out of paying for it.
“Probably, but what does that have to do with reality?”
Just trying to point out that if the industry&gov’t realized people are only doing it because there is no consequences, they should actually start enforcing their own laws that they whined and bitched to get. If there was actually some sort of consequence to illegal file sharing from the get go, you can’t seriously say most people today would still do it.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
All I did say is that if artists did what people on this site wanted them to do, (give away the music to promote concerts and other stuff) it would be reasonable to say that they would probably expect the price of everything else to drop since they are already getting the core product for free.
No, that doesn’t make any sense. Why would I expect to pay less for a concert ticket because MP3s got cheaper? The two things are completely unrelated.
People of all ages take part in file sharing.
What I asked is whether you think there’s a correlation between age and attitudes toward file sharing. Specifically, opinions on whether on not file sharing is morally wrong. Do you?
But when it’s over the internet where people are unknown and know there are no consequences, all of a sudden it’s different.
I can’t believe I have to explain this, but that is not why it’s different. It’s different because if I steal something off the shelf, there’s one less thing the store has to sell, while if I make a copy of a song, there are now more copies of the song in the world, not fewer.
Just trying to point out that if the industry&gov’t realized people are only doing it because there is no consequences, they should actually start enforcing their own laws that they whined and bitched to get.
By suing their customers? Even the incredibly slow and dull witted RIAA finally realized that was a disaster. Now they’re enforcing the laws by issuing DMCA takedown requests. Which laws are you referring to that aren’t being enforced?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
“No, that doesn’t make any sense. Why would I expect to pay less for a concert ticket because MP3s got cheaper? The two things are completely unrelated.”
So you are telling me that if people start getting used to getting the core product for free or dirt cheap, that they wouldn’t like everything else to be cheaper as well?
“What I asked is whether you think there’s a correlation between age and attitudes toward file sharing. Specifically, opinions on whether on not file sharing is morally wrong. Do you?”
Probably, but you don’t need to be a kid to want free stuff.
“I can’t believe I have to explain this, but that is not why it’s different. It’s different because if I steal something off the shelf, there’s one less thing the store has to sell, while if I make a copy of a song, there are now more copies of the song in the world, not fewer.”
I know the definition of what a copy is. It’s just a bullshit excuse for you guys to justify getting out of paying for a product. You don’t pay for the physical copy when you buy entertainment…you are paying for the actual content. You know, the video game or album that took a LOT of hours and resources to create. But hey. I guess it’s a lot easier to get out of paying for something when it’s not your bottom line being affected.
“By suing their customers? Even the incredibly slow and dull witted RIAA finally realized that was a disaster. Now they’re enforcing the laws by issuing DMCA takedown requests. Which laws are you referring to that aren’t being enforced?”
No, not by suing customers. Of course that is silly. (except for the people that actually made money off of it…then they have every right to sue) And DMCA doesn’t work because the sites just give content creators the finger by allowing users to re-upload the same thing that was taken down. If there was some kind of fine ($50-100 plus retail maybe?) or other consequence for illegal filesharing, people wouldn’t do it anymore. People only do it now because it’s easy, and there are NO consequences.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
So you are telling me that if people start getting used to getting the core product for free or dirt cheap, that they wouldn’t like everything else to be cheaper as well?
Of course they would like it to be cheaper, but that isn’t how economics works. When the price of something drops, the prices of related goods doesn’t also drop just because customers would prefer it.
Probably, but you don’t need to be a kid to want free stuff.
So we agree that some people, especially younger people, do not find any moral problem with file sharing.
It’s just a bullshit excuse for you guys to justify getting out of paying for a product.
No, it’s an actual reason why it’s different from stealing.
You know, the video game or album that took a LOT of hours and resources to create.
Generally fixed costs aren’t factored into the price of a good.
I guess it’s a lot easier to get out of paying for something when it’s not your bottom line being affected.
There is little or no evidence that artists are negatively affected by file sharing.
If there was some kind of fine ($50-100 plus retail maybe?) or other consequence for illegal filesharing, people wouldn’t do it anymore.
I thought you wanted them to enforce the laws we have now, not ask for new ones. Why are you talking about new laws that we need? Are the existing laws adequate and just need to be enforced, or do we need new ones?
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
“So we agree that some people, especially younger people, do not find any moral problem with file sharing.”
Of course people don’t care about morals when they are getting free stuff…especially things like expensive professional programs or video games.
“No, it’s an actual reason why it’s different from stealing.”
Maybe if you go by the technical dictionary definition for both, then it’s different. In either situation, you are illegally obtaining a product for free to get out of paying for it. Just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean it’s right.
“There is little or no evidence that artists are negatively affected by file sharing.”
I wasn’t talking about just artists…for example, there are some games that are never released for PC because the dev is worried about it being pirated. But honestly, if someone’s core product (aka, the thing most people ACTUALLY want) is being illegally obtained for free everywhere, how doesn’t that hurt their bottom line? You guys like to say piracy=not a lost sale, but how is that possibly true if the person on the other end was actually going to buy it before discovering it was free elsewhere?
“Are the existing laws adequate and just need to be enforced, or do we need new ones?”
DMCA doesn’t seem to work since sites can just allow users to re-upload the same thing that was taken down, so new ones probably would work better. Assuming they aren’t a clusterfuck waiting to happen like SOPA.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
If something isn’t right does that mean it’s wrong?
Let’s not forget that SOPA has been reported (by its supporters) that it won’t change existing laws. The problem isn’t that we need a new law; it’s that your idiots need to be happy with what they have and enforce it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Replying up here since it’s getting kind of narrow.
Of course people don’t care about morals when they are getting free stuff.
My point is that there are a lot of people who don’t believe that it’s wrong. Your moral argument is not going to hold any weight with them.
Maybe if you go by the technical dictionary definition for both, then it’s different.
Using the correct definitions for words is usually the best way to have a productive conversation.
Just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean it’s right.
That’s a strawman, since I never claimed it does.
I wasn’t talking about just artists…for example, there are some games that are never released for PC because the dev is worried about it being pirated.
For “artist” think “content creator”. And there are other video game developers who have released non-DRM games for the PC, not worried about piracy, and made plenty of money from it. Thus proving that piracy is not a deal-breaker for a successful PC gaming strategy. The same story happens for every single other kind of content: make good stuff, give your fans/customers what they want, engage with them, don’t worry about people who aren’t paying you, and good things will happen.
But honestly, if someone’s core product (aka, the thing most people ACTUALLY want) is being illegally obtained for free everywhere, how doesn’t that hurt their bottom line?
1. Without data, you have just stated an assumption, nothing more. 2. As I said, people are still having success selling games, music, movies, and books. The fact that some people don’t pay doesn’t mean you can’t still be successful at it. 3. If you’re having trouble selling the thing you want to sell… sell something else. Don’t burden society passing restrictive censorship laws to try to keep selling the thing you want to sell. Sell something scarce, not something infinite. That way everyone benefits.
You guys like to say piracy=not a lost sale, but how is that possibly true if the person on the other end was actually going to buy it before discovering it was free elsewhere?
Because lots of studies have shown that pirates are also the same people who spend the most money on entertainment. I doubt there’s a very big contingent of people who were about to buy something and then discovered there’s this thing called piracy. Anyone tech savvy enough and with the desire to do it is already pirating (IMO anyway).
Assuming they aren’t a clusterfuck waiting to happen like SOPA.
At least we agree on that!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“My point is that there are a lot of people who don’t believe that it’s wrong. Your moral argument is not going to hold any weight with them.”
Lol. Of course people don’t want to think it’s wrong…all they really give a shit is that they are getting out of paying for stuff, even if it’s done by obtaining the product(s) illegally.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Are you sure they aren’t just happy to be able to try before they buy?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I’m not saying people don’t try before they buy…I’ve done that myself a few times when the file size was small enough. But I’m willing to guess that a LOT more people do it to get out of paying for things. If you honestly dl something just to see if it’s worth buying, then delete it after you decide, nothing wrong with that.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I’m sure some do download to get something for free. People like Winona Ryder and Lindsay Lohan come to mind. People who get a thrill out of getting something for free.
I also think many downloads should be counted as legitimate as they are done so with a “license.” People who have bought the product and download as back-up, replacement, conversion…Read some gaming boards to see what I am talking about and get a sense of how many had to download in order to play a recently purchased game.
How much “piracy” have we eliminated so far?
Now then, how does copyright promote progress today?
Keeping in mind that it is to encourage sharing with the public and enrich the public domain.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Of course people don’t want to think it’s wrong…all they really give a shit is that they are getting out of paying for stuff, even if it’s done by obtaining the product(s) illegally.
You just can’t bear to admit anyone might disagree with you about the morality of it, can you? Is that because you feel that’s the only really strong argument against file sharing, and without it there’s no reason for someone not to do it?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I don’t care if you or anyone else disagrees. It’s not like I’m holding a gun to your head demanding you agree with me. But really. Is it NOT human nature to justify what you are doing or even find a reason for why what you are doing is right instead of wrong?
And no, that’s not “the only strong” argument against file sharing. I also don’t think the filesharing sites should actually be allowed to profit off of other people’s work. If the content creator allows the site to distribute their work, that’s one thing. But otherwise it’s kind of bs. These sites that charge a membership fee or plaster ads all over their site aren’t stupid…they know the majority of the files uploaded probably aren’t legit ones. They know pretty damn well that they profit from other people’s work.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
techdirt is profiting off of your work right now!
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Because posting comments on a blog is SO much work. I mean, it does involve me walking the one foot to my laptop. And typing in a bunch of stuff. OH THE HORROR! LOOK AT ALL THE EFFORT I’M USING ON THIS! AAAAAAAAAH!
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Harder than uploading a file/link.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
http://www.staples.com/
That was easy!
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Is it NOT human nature to justify what you are doing or even find a reason for why what you are doing is right instead of wrong?
It is, but we can only speculate about how many people have a genuine belief about the morality of the issue, and how many simply justify their actions if asked about it.
And no, that’s not “the only strong” argument against file sharing. I also don’t think the filesharing sites should actually be allowed to profit off of other people’s work.
How about if nobody profits from it?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
“How about if nobody profits from it?”
How do sites like megaupload, which have premium account options and who plaster their site with ads, NOT profit by letting their users upload pirated stuff?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
How do sites like megaupload, which have premium account options and who plaster their site with ads, NOT profit by letting their users upload pirated stuff?
Well, if you look at my question again, you’ll see I didn’t claim that they don’t profit. I asked “what if nobody profits?” I’m sure you can see that there could be situations where there is copyright infringement, but no monetary profit. What is your opinion about such scenarios?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
I still think it’s wrong, but a bit more acceptable since it is for personal use. If someone really likes the content they are consuming, there is no reason why they can’t throw the creator a few bucks for it. Especially if they are an indie production that really needs the money.
Christmas Favourites
Not entirely in line with the whole piracy thing but tangetal to it. Two of the “must see’s” on television share something in common. They both were box office bombs.
“It’s A Wonderful Life” flopped miserably, so badly that when the time came to renew the copyright the studio forgot to. Some TV station got ahold of it, ran it and the rest is history.
Similarly “Scrooge” (UK) or “A Christmas Carol” (US & Canada) flopped. It’s still in copyright but that doesn’t mean that it’s not in many collections and on many hard disks to be brought out on the holiday season.
Alistair Sim gave what is often thought of as the definitive portrayal of Scrooge in film that largely held to the darkness and gloom that was present in Dickens’ short story rather than Hollywood’s too often bright and, often comic, attempts which completely miss the point of Dickens’ story while trying to make a movie “for the whole family”. The first time I saw Sim’s version it scared the hell of of me, all of 8 at the time, but held me till the closing scenes where things became sorta happy. (For God’s sake avoid the colourized version which screws with the brilliant lighting and shadows of the B&W that it looks rather like a neon sign in a red light district.)
Now what’s the point of all of this? We can download It’s A Wonderful Life all we want because it’s in the public domain now but, if SOPA came into effect, we’d be criminals if we downloaded Alistair Sim.
Both, though, have moved from mere movies to a deep part of English speaking culture this time of year globally and people are attracted to both. Perhaps to get away from the constant manufactured “joy” leading up to the day itself.
My sister, hardly a pirate, would be horrified to know she’s possibly a crook cause she has Sim’s Scrooge on her hard drive and plays it every Christmas Eve along with It’s a Wonderful Life. When I told her about SOPA she looked at me and went “I don’t care, it’s part of our culture now so to hell with them.” Along with the standard Canadian fallback line of damned stupid Americans in moments like this.
The point being, how do you or CAN YOU educate someone out of sharing what they are certain has become a cultural touchstone? And some moves have become that. As have some songs. Whether Hollywood likes it or not. I’ll wager that A Christmas Carol is being downloaded or torrented at this moment by a few thousand people all over the world who neither know or care that it may still be covered by a copyright.
You’d think they’d like it. It strikes me that, if nothing else, these otherwise master marketers could turn the copyright expiry to a great PR move crowing about what they’d just donated to the public domain.
Or maybe it’s because the movies tanked at the box office. One they ignored when they copyright expired, the other I can’t quickly find that information on one way or another.
Neither directly deals with what the holiday celebrates but both deal with the theme of redemption that the feast day proclaims has arrived. That’s something that seems to strike a deep chord in all of us, Christian or not. That we can be or are forgiven and that no matter what we can change.
Unless of course, you’re a copyright purist or the MPAA or RIAA. Well, not yet, anyway. Though, as the stories say, this is always possible.
Enjoy our cultural touchstones and forget the propaganda that wants to pass for education. Enjoy what is best about our cultures whoever you are.
Re: Christmas Favourites
“The point being, how do you or CAN YOU educate someone out of sharing what they are certain has become a cultural touchstone?”
It doesn’t matter, it’s not THEIR choice.
The makers of IAWL decided not to renew their copyright, let it lapse, and the rest is “history”.
The makers of A Christmas Carol thought enough of their work to keep the copyright up. While it may have cultural significance (gained under copyright… how could that happen?), they have the rights to it and that should be respected.
Basically, you are making excuses as to why copyright could be and should be ignored. Too bad you don’t have respect for the creators of this “culture touchstone”.
Re: Re: Christmas Favourites
Respect works both ways, buddy.
Re: Re: Christmas Favourites
On the other hand you’ve entirely missed the point. First off, I said I couldn’t find information on if the copyright for the film is still in effect. If it wasn’t renewed it would have run out in 1965 which is about the time it really began to show up all over tv stations outside of prime time and on PBS who will grab onto these things the moment the copyright expires.
And I do recall that the makers of the original movie were horrified at the colourization of it and, if I remember correctly tried to stop it and failed, another indication that the copyright MAY have expired.
And yes, they did “think enough” about their work to copyright it but that doesn’t change it’s status as a cultural touchstone NOW.
Remember, both movies tanked at the box office and neither was really worth a lot for tv syndication before It’s A Wonderful Life became free of copyright AND began to get major air time and it appears that Scrooge/A Christmas Carol may have as well. As I said, I couldn’t find information about that.
And believe me I have all the respect in the world for the creators of these films. You have no idea how much.
But downloading aside, it doesn’t stop both these films from becoming best sellers on sites like Amazon and imDB this time of year either.
What you don’t seem to get is that people still watch, say, Star Trek in droves even though most episodes are leaked and downloaded before they show. Star Trek fans still go to the movies in droves. Me among them. (I don’t download the tv shows, btw cause I don’t have the time to watch them, I’m sorry to say.)
Doctor Who is among the most “pirated” shows on television globally and yet it still gets very high viewership. Doesn’t seem to hurt it any.
Rocky Horror Picture Show is also likely one of the most pirated movies on the internet. It tanked at the box office too. Quoting Roger Evert:
“When the film was first released in 1975 it was ignored by pretty much everyone, including the future fanatics who would eventually count the hundreds of times they’d seen it. “Rocky Horror” opened, closed, and would have been forgotten had it not been for the inspiration of a low-level 20th Century-Fox executive who talked his superiors into testing it as a midnight cult movie.
The rest is history.”
The cult has died down some, but there are still places where the film does it’s midnight thing and properly promoted the theatres sell out. So not only is it downloaded but just as often those downloading head off to be in the theatre when it plays. Can’t be a cult of one, can we?
You also ignored or are deliberately downplaying the remark I made about the priceless PR the studios would get voluntarily placing films like these into the public domain. Might make the public at large feel better about them.
To return to A Christmas Carol, the story itself is now a cultural touchstone and became one very shortly after Dickens’ published it as a short serial in a newspaper which was common at the time. Didn’t hurt that one either.
Still sold like gangbusters when it came out in the UK and in the US, though because the US didn’t recognize other countries copyrights at the time Dickens never saw a penny out of those sales. Didn’t stop him touring in America, though. Like a lot of authors, even now, he made far more money on the tours than he did on his books, at least for long time on his books and none at all in the USA.
The reality is that you can’t educate out of “cultural touchstone” because the culture has claimed the work.
If you were the least bit creative at all you’d realize what incredible respect and honour that is for creators. That’s their ticket into better contracts with publishers, film studios, tv networks and what have we than a best seller or blockbuster ever could be. The name recognition is incredible and requires no promotion at all.
I make no excuse for ignoring copyright. What I am saying is that it’s sometimes better to back off on the alleged money making part of a copyright to acknowledge that a move from flop movies to cultural touchstone(s) means more and it worth more to a creative person than any of the money they’d have made off the copyright.
Dickens certainly understood that when he toured America at a time when every publisher in the United States was a pirate by the definition that you and SOPA want to apply to that word and the panic you falsely cause around it.
Or even your lame, false claim that “it’s about the artist”. Bullshit.
Of course, you’d rather troll than examine your position, right?
Right.
Re: Re: Re: Christmas Favourites
Dickens didn’t understood anything, he was a fervent copyright maximalist specially after the Christmas Carol thing.
He toured because of piracy, which turned out to be a good thing, he toured because he couldn’t do anything about the “piracy” that others engaged in, and that is how it should be, people should get paid for the work they do directly and not for work they claim is derived from their own, there is nothing wrong with that, that is why Dickens never had to pay the paper makers, the pencil makers, the ink makers, the furniture makers, the car makers or any other makers a dime for what they helped him accomplished beyond a small fee paid once which we call it a sale.
Piracy is the public reclaiming the lost terrain that a shameful monopoly has taken away from the public.
Re: Re: Christmas Favourites
Quote:
You are wrong it is my choice and everybody else choices is certainly not your choice to dictate how I should watch something or with whom I share it with and I dare you or any government try and say otherwise.
Don’t know why my post double posted?
Re: Re:
You’re incredibly talented 😉
Maybe they can criminalize making fun of their "education"
The fact that these people think they can overcome file-sharing through an “educational” campaign is the best evidence yet of their stupidity. While they’re at it, why don’t they try to “educate” college students out of smoking pot through showings of “Reefer Madness”?
Their attempts to talk to high-school and college kids “on their own level” carry all the street cred of an undercover vice cop decked out in Full Cleveland asking to buy a “marijuana cigarette.” I can see it now: “Justin Bieber says file-sharing just isn’t cool!” Bwahahaha!
Re: Maybe they can criminalize making fun of their "education"
They used Reefer Madness as “drug eduction” in the 60s and 70s, I remember seeing if after lunch which ended sharing joint with some friends and I can’t recall seeing much of anything funnier in my life.
A close second was the sex ed film we got a few weeks later. Toked up for that one too after we started to hear about it. Right, you can get clap from holding hands.
Poor guidance teachers never did figure out why the classes dragged in to watch these things were roaring with laughter.
Probably the same ignorance which allowed the high school librarian to water and tend a pot plant in a sunny window all the way from October to June when it suddenly disappered. All 7′ of it. Probably one of if not the first of Vancouver’s grow-ops 🙂
Morality is defined by the Majority, if the majority says piracy isn’t bad then it’s not immoral.
Copyright is an agreement between artists and society. Entertainment industry has pushed it well beyond it’s original boundaries. How? They made a ton of money abusing their monopoly and used it to alter the agreement in their favor.
The real question is whether society agrees with it. Care to take a vote?
Angry Joe is against SOPA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-hpgI0XFSg
WTF is Angry Joe?
Basically one of the thousands of small content producers on Youtube and elsewhere who don’t like that bill and what it could do to them and their way of living.
Who knew keyboard warriors actually would go all the way to Washington to talk in person to their representatives.
Just type SOPA in any video stream website and see how long the list of people against it is, it goes from the funny to the serious, from little known people to some celebrities.
Re: Angry Joe is against SOPA
Yup, he and his friends on the tgwtg.com site flew out there – the Nostalgia Chick, Linkara, The Spoony One, Oancitizen, Todd in the Shadows, Paw and the like. And they tried to talk to the staff of the reps, although Spoony says that most wouldn’t listen to them.
All are small content producers who do internet reviews with clips from what they do. And these people could all lose their jobs if SOPA passed, because they dare to give honest viewpoints instead of pandering to Big Content.
And he’s right – after a review comes out, I am MORE likely than less to go buy the movie,including a few I’d never heard of before. And horrible movies like Birdemic or The Room would never have gotten their cult followings.
Everybody knows..........
……that piracy is wrong. Yeah. Sure. Doesn’t that sound a bit like “Everybody knows that Jesus (insert appropriate dogma here)” or maybe it should be “Jehovah” or “The Prophet” or “Our Lady”. All it shows is that the poster firmly believes some clearly unprovable statement and he wishes everybody else did also. So he assumes they do and those that don’t are evil.
So it’s a question of morals? Whose morals? When I was a kid comic books were immoral. Now they are auctioned for thousands of bucks. Later, “dirty books” were immoral. Now they are protected by copyright and porno vendors are suing people. Gambling used to be immoral. Now the government is the biggest numbers game around. But, of course, piracy is immoral. And always will be.
What is immoral is the ability of a rich guy or his company or trade organization to get laws passed that enrich him and his pals. I’m sure my local lawn mower dealer would be richer if he could get a law passed that anybody with more than 10 square feet of grass was required to buy a new mower every two years.
Tell ya what; I won’t shoplift movies or books or cds. I won’t sell copies. I won’t pretend I’m the author of somebody else work. But that’s it. If somebody wants to share their stuff with me or if I share with others I don’t see any immorality there.
Maybe the media business IS the next bubble. They got a once in a lifetime gift when their back dated libraries became valuable thanks to tv, dvds, cable and so forth. But thats it. They don’t get something like that on a regular basis. Maybe the movie business of the future will be a much smaller operation. Maybe 300 million dollar movies won’t be practical in future. So what? Circus, vaudville, ballet, opera and stage plays were once popular sources of entertainment and now they are niche businesses. Bought any sheet music lately? Have you taken a ride on a trolley car? Businesses come and go and the movie business and record business have had a one hundred year run. Maybe it’s time for something new.
Does watching YouTube make me a pirate?
I mean, I watched some George Carlin performances on it, and enjoyed them as much, if not more than when I originally watched them on HBO. These are generally 3 – 10 minute clips, not entire shows, and are widespread on YouTube. I occasionally see one taken down, and for some reason, they seem to be the most political ones. Wonder why that is? For example, his brutally honest and correct “American Dream” segment was up one day, and down the next, with the usual copyright bullshit message in its place. Didn’t matter, as it showed up elsewhere shortly afterward. If watching that makes me a pirate, tough shit!
‘The idea of any law against piracy isn’t to stop piracy, that is a strawman. The idea is to make piracy hard enough that, regardless of the choices Mr
Vixie discusses, that the casual pirate decides it’s cheaper, easier, and less of a hassle and risk to just join Netflix and be done with it.’
So you are openly admitting that the purpose of the law is terror and not enforcement of a workable societal norm?
If the law is so draconian that it even bans copying a borrowed cd, I feel no moral obligation to obey it.
Desperation: Go Daddy calling customers, begging them to stay
?
?Desperation: Go Daddy calling customers, begging them to stay? by Drew Olanoff, TNW, 24 Dec 2011.
Wow. It’s like your former boyfriend or girlfriend.
The internet can be very cold.
?
Desperation: Go Daddy calling customers, begging them to stay
?
?Desperation: Go Daddy calling customers, begging them to stay? by Drew Olanoff, TNW, 24 Dec 2011.
Wow. It’s like your former boyfriend or girlfriend.
The internet can be very cold.
?
Hey my friends, here is a few more videos from web-content/fair use producers about SOPA, and how they actually went to Washington to fight it:
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/team-nchick/specials/33613-mr-awesome-goes-to-washington
http://blip.tv/the-spoony-experiment/vlog-12-14-11-trip-to-dc-stop-sopa-5823636
It shows how corrupt Washington is that they did their best to ignore these people, who will LOSE THEIR JOBS if SOPA passes, even though their reviews and Let’s Plays encourage people to buy the product. But UMG and its ilk want them to stop because they dare to make fun of the bad stuff, and use film clips to illustrate it.
RE: Morality
is it “Moral” to get paid more then once for the work you have done?? If you get paid “per use” why does that not work for houses and apartments and cars and everything else? Why is it “moral” for Music and Movies and no one else?? I wonder if sound men and caterers, grips and makeup artists get paid royalties. Why is it moral for only “select” people to get paid royalties and all the others that work on film and music get paid hourly and only once?
Sopa's illegal
I feel he missed some key points in the bill, like blocking off access to foreign websites, and any website known for piracy. He seperated these people into wrong categories, 1 those who use websites for piracy, and those who use these websites to spread ideas and get feed back on potential music and software development. If Sopa’s blocking access to these websites then they are also blocking peoples freedom to learn and freedom of speech, freedoms that have been guaranteed to citizens of the united states,freedoms that make us free.
“If the industry hadn’t wasted so many years and so much money on legal tricks and lobbying for stricter copyright laws, and instead invested that money and effort into providing better legitimate and licensed services, those kids would have gladly jumped to those offerings. But the industry decided to go in the other direction…”
Holy shit! I actually agree with freetard Masnick for once! HIDE YO KIDS HIDE YO WIFE! THEY BE CONVERTING EVERYONE TO THE DARK SIDE IN HERE! >:o But anyway. xD
If there is one thing I absolutely fucking hate as a musician, it is the fact that the labels’ stupidity made our lives harder. Had they released their own form of napster after they shut it down, piracy probably wouldn’t have even been the mainstream thing to do. But no. Because the stupid fat cats in the industry refused to adapt, we musicians now have to figure out how we can still make a good living when everyone in society thinks music should be free or only $5-10 a month. Oh, not to mention that software/game devs and pretty much anyone with a digital product having to do the same. Because god forbid someone actually spends the few hundred dollars to invest in the programs they need for their business.
Re: Re:
Because the stupid fat cats in the industry refused to adapt, we musicians now have to figure out how we can still make a good living when everyone in society thinks music should be free or only $5-10 a month.
Prices were going to come down either way. The labels just had a choice how to deal with that fact. You seem to be thinking that if the labels had acted quickly, everyone could still be charging $16 for an album, but that isn’t how it would have happened.