I would question it as fact. It looks like the study was more based on correlation of digital sales without looking at the wider industry. In the same time frame that Megaupload was taken down the following also happened:
* Amazon adds 5000 videos to Amazon Instant Video and begins heavily promoting it on their site
* Hulu starts getting real traction by adding advertising allowing them to expand their catalog.
* A number of networks decided to follow some form of the route taken by South Park by hosting streams for their own shows/movies.
* Digital download editions of physical media began to be sold
* Walmart offers a digital transfer service that allows consumers to copy their DVDs to a digital format
I'm sure there is more.
So while shutting down megaupload may have had an affect on piracy the numbers are questionable due to the fact so many other big shifts to digital happened in the same few years and gained traction all around the same space of 12-24 months.
Technically not possible as far as I am aware. In order to burn a CD an image must be prepared and authored (most of this is transparent to the end user these days) which generally means your data is not only copied to a persistent disk but may be copied 2-3 more times during the burning process.
I am not sure there are any tools out there that can take a data stream and push the output directly onto a an optical disc short of leaving the session open and treating it as an RW device. Even then I would wager the files stop off at the hard drive before being written to the open session.
What if someone creates an app that lets you tie the free disk space you have on multiple systems together to use as a single remote volume? I can come up with all kinds of novel ways to work with files and their filesystems that would run afoul of this ruling just sitting in my basement.
Sounds like, with this ruling, now doing anything with protected media other than consuming it from the original device it was downloaded on using approved software is now illegal. Want to move your music from one folder to another? Illegal. Want to copy music from your old PC to a new system prior to throwing the old PC away? Illegal. Are someone who only had an iPod but no full PC until recently? All that stuff you downloaded on your iPod must stay there forever.
Well, if it was hyperbole before, with his ruling, if I am reading it right, all computer users in the US will violate copyright everyday, multiple times a day, just by using their computers.
Of course from a practical sense it would be hard to harass the public over this. You would first have to prove the user actually understands how the software on their system works well enough to actually willfully infringe.
The DMCA provides provisions that allow consumers full rights to break DRM and use the content under it if the DRM is defunct. Meaning that if the industry disables auth servers or changes to a new kind of encryption/DRM and you can no longer buy on the public market new devices that support that DRM then you can legally break that DRM and I believe devices capable of breaking the DRM are allowed to be distributed for personal usage.
So far this has only happened on a small scale for some games and other niche areas and I don't think it's really be tried in the courts. This particular provision is something they want to kill IIRC but have yet to do so completely (though I'm sure there are more restrictions than what i simply state here).
The thing is, based on the spec, this is just a plugin API (ie no real DRM happens in the browser). Meaning each content creator is going to push onto your machine either 1st or 3rd party DRM code that will RUN on your computer rather than just play a stream.
On top of all the issues with how this really is not much difference from the ActiveX and Flash messes of old; All I see here is a way for malicious developers/site authors to take advantage of end users and gain access to a new area where code can run (Possibly even outside the sandbox depending on the implementation).
Just like any other DRM, the people who can will remove it fairly easily when they really want something. However it will cause a whole bunch of fun for end customers when their DRM plugin store goes awry or they click a link from an email they think is from netflix, watch a TV show and now have a virus.
And how would such a program ever accurately tell someone has or is infringing? As time goes on and people collect more digital data from a dizzying array of sources how could any piece of software determine a "legal" file or resource from an "illegal" one?
I have been ripping MP3s and DVDs for personal streaming since the technologies were available. Further as a computer professional I have tons of software from multiple vendors with all kinds of different licenses (retail, volume, corporate, shared keys, etc).
It seems to me that the first people that would get in trouble with such spyware would not be actual pirates (and the criminality of piracy is HIGHLY questionable as it is) but rather digital pack-rats and professionals that may have more on their system (and a larger variety of esoteric types) than your average home user. I don't pirate and everything I have and do is acquired legally. I am glad this is only in Canada for now, I really don't want to worry about a software download potentially sending me through the legal ringer for a 8 year old MP3 I haven't listened to in ages and ripped myself anyway.
True, but the Metro UI is the default upon logging in and what the majority of casual users will spend the majority of their time.
We are trotting out this tired argument again? This was the EXCAT same argument used when microsoft started bundling IE with the operating system. Many people wanted the IE browser to be disallowed by default completely using the same flawed logic that users won't use any other browsers because it was default.
Then the DOJ came along and among many of the orders handed to MS was that the IE browser needs to be optional and a less integral part of the OS. Microsoft complied making it easier for any browser to be run. IE is still the default on nearly all OEM windows systems and retail windows installs yet a vast majority of the internet uses alternates.
You argument is as hallow now as it was when they tried to use it at the height of the MS case.
Many modern wireless and combo routers also include USB, eSATA or Firewire ports for hooking up storage devices for exposure over the network.
There is no way to tell if a particular router has such a device hooked up until you actually break into it and generally, unlike shared storage on a PC that may implement some form of security, very often these router shares are open to whomever has network access.
A monopoly is only a problem if they are, through some action, attempting to keep competition out of the market (I don't know if they have or not). Considering events like the X Games I would say they aren't even a monopoly but they do hold the lions share of the market.
As I said in my first reply I don't disagree with you on the IP rights side of things but your rant about exploiting the athletes makes no sense.
As for committees charging to the use of a sport I don't honestly know if you can put IP rights on the playing of a sport. That seems just as twisted as what the IOC is proposing though perhaps that was your point.
I agree that the bully tactics the IOC uses are overboard but how is their business model evil?
Athletes want to compete in the Olympics in various events.
People all over the world want to watch people compete in those events.
Putting on these kinds of events requires a ton of resources (money, time, etc) and logistics to even happen.
The IOC is a business providing this service that is paid for by advertising. Is it somehow wrong for them to expect to make a profit on the venture?
The athletes are not being exploited, no one forced them (well at least for most participants) to do what they are doing and if they didn't feel the potential pay off was worthwhile they would not do it at all.
I know the athletes are a big part of this but you are completely discounting what the IOC is bringing to the table as having little or no value. Without the IOC or some organization putting resources into such an event the Olympics would be little more than some locals running around in an empty field.
Could it be done better, cheaper or in a model that is non-profit? Sure but it does not mean that the poor athletes are being exploited because someone is making a profit somewhere.
By your logic you might as well say the host cities are exploring the athletes too since very often host cities benefit greatly from the Olympics. Let not forget those evil exploiting fans too, I mean, they didn't do anything but they get all the pleasure of watching the event.
I would copy pasta the old tired quote about how giving up freedom for security gets you neither but based on your post it would seem you are quite happy to give up everything to protect yourself from the big bad bogey man.
I would be inclined to back you up if this lady was just your average user. As the editor of a magazine a plea of ignorance on how IP on the internet works does not fly as it should have been part of her role to be very aware of how others content can be used and the customs around it as well as the possible consequences if she messed up.
Should she loose or shut down the magazine over this? I am on the fence about that but she most certainly was responsible and saying "I didn't know better" just does not work.