White House wants new copyright laws.

[Odesseiron]

I pay for a subscription on torrentleech, does that count? (I can't be bothered to upload)

[miokomioko]

Arguing semantics over copying/stealing is a complete load of crap that's just a method of dodging the topic and justifying the crime being committed. Also, I don't think that animation was trying to do that, it was most definitely trying to paint piracy in a nicer light. Perhaps the word "theft" in a legal context needs a revised definition? Or you can just use a really basic definition like "taking something without paying for it." I don't think the RIAA needs to rethink the use of the words stealing/theft/etc. when they can easily be defined (still accurately) to incorporate piracy... even more so when piracy eventually damages a creator's potential income, or previous income. It just gets sticky when you're speaking about potential this and value that.

Damaging and devaluing are more appropriate terms, but there's obviously (as seen by the criminal apologists everywhere and in this thread) very little understanding in the average brain that the act of giving away infinite copies of something reduces its monetary value.

[Rhinox]

usually when someone is as wrong as you are they tend not to keep posting for fear of being labeled retarded. We've now reached that point.

[notorious bum]

mioko is the master of knowing things, we are all merely simpletons. How could I forget this proclamation, as stated in other threads?

Hey, listen since you're a fuckin wizard of sorts about this whole copyright law issue, why don't you make bank by becoming a lobbyist for the RIAA? You would do well with that whole thesis on 'dumbing down' the language of IP to make it even more obvious to the public that they are pulling numbers out their asses for damages incurred.

Nothing better than replacing one arbitrary definition with another, that's textbook attorney shit all day.

[miokomioko]

What the hell is there to actually be "wrong" about here anyways? The only things that were incorrect was someone calling out plagiarism on a situation I mentioned that wasn't actually plagiarism... as well as someone else making false assumptions about the situation to support their flawed idea that the spreading of intellectual property is always good thing.

I'm so sorry that me backing copyright laws conflicts with what people have to tell themselves so they don't feel so guilty about the countless amounts of money worth of songs, movies, games, programs they possess that they would never have if it weren't for the people illegally distributing it to them. It's morally perfect and innocent to buy the dirt cheap bootleg shit from some guy on a street corner because you weren't the one that actually stole the music/movie/design/etc. It's the original artist's fault for pricing it so high. That's the kind of bullshit logic that I'm arguing with.

There's some cause and effect and going on here and people think that the piracy is some sort of natural order of things to regulate prices when its effects go far beyond that to people that don't deserve to be infringed upon because you can't afford a luxury. Once your business' financial well-being no longer depends heavily on the ease of marketing that piracy supplies, it turns on you. No one here speaks on that side of the fence because everyone around here is generally an amateur in whatever their industry is and can't fathom the idea that you'll eventually need to keep a very sharp eye on what's yours and who can use it or display it that won't affect your integrity, image, etc. in a negative way.

I'm well aware that the numbers that the RIAA come up with for their litigations are straight out of their ass and are mostly used as a scare tactic for the general public. I've never claimed to be withholding some sort of magic understanding of how much actual damage is being done or value is being lost because of piracy. I'm stating the fact that these actions are affecting the value of people's work/creations/art/etc. if it can be distributed digitally since people like to feign ignorance about their actions being any sort of contribution to the problem.

A small personal example is when I had a Flickr account where I stored some of my photography, for ease of sharing and whatnot, where I had a portrait of a striking light blue-eyed girl wearing a man's suit. I eventually got a call from the model who said she spotted the photo in an airport in Thailand. Apparently, some Thai shitbags that own a tailor shop inside the airport, took my photograph from Flickr and used it to advertise their business. Now, some people would say that's potentially free advertising for me and that I could just put that in my client list and/or resume. If I needed or wanted that in my client list, sure, I could pretend that I did it pro-bono just for exposure and reap the benefits. However, I did not care, want, or need, that shitty, meaningless little client or exposure in Thailand and knew that I would ultimately reap no benefits from it. Not only that, but they used a horribly low-res version of the photograph to print from which damages the integrity of my work if my name were to ever be attached to it. I am left with only wanting monetary damages for what it would have cost them to license the image for all of the advertising/marketing applications they used it for for as long as they used it. Is that unfair or absurd? Does that make me as bad as the RIAA or is that my understandable right to defend my creations and maintaining control of how and where they are used by putting a price on others' crimes of infringement?

There's so many variables coming from all different directions with this worldwide problem and everyone wants to blame one singular entity for movies/concerts being too expensive, or the video game they worked forever on not being profitable. It would be nice if piracy could either be entirely eliminated or embraced... but it will never be. The small business wants it to spread their presence, the big business dislikes its products being distributed instead of sold. And not all businesses have been in both sets of shoes at this time in history. You have a lot of large businesses that never had an opportunity to take advantage of the benefits when they needed them. You can guess which side the government is always going to be on and which sides the pirates are always going to be on. With how difficult it is to trace back and how rampant the problem will always be, and with how much the government wants to crack down, it will never end.

Well, maybe when you can buy products for such a low price that searching for torrents and waiting for downloads instead wouldn't be worth it. (That's how Netflix won) However, that doesn't come close to being applicable to all industries.

[Plow]

Well, maybe when you can buy products for such a low price that searching for torrents and waiting for downloads instead wouldn't be worth it. (That's how Netflix won) However, that doesn't come close to being applicable to all industries.

Rhapsody is like that kind of too for music, especially since it actually gives some level of mp3 player rights. Nowhere near as awesomely, or completely, as netflix does, though. Better than netflix on demand by a long shot, though.

I haven't looked into it much either but I think Qriocity is giving pretty good freedom to use music from there on other players as well.

[notorious bum]

mioko, you said it yourself, there are many variables to piracy, so it isn't fair to marginalize the issue to support your side of the argument. Which, if you think about it, is exactly what you're doing, but with more filler.

All I read in that block of redundant mess was your way of saying, once again, that we are all dumb bootleggers stealing peoples shit that we otherwise would never afford. Some of us have already explained why we download shit, even though we probably could BUY the album or dvd, if we wanted to. But, I guess you missed that whole argument about: consolidated bullshit industries, watered-down, uncompetitive, over-priced, monopoly fuckery? Oh, and I forgot the lack of funds that actually go towards the artists involved, sort of a popular topic these days with all the trendy label-dropping.

Now, you keep using this visual art swan song as a crutch to support your pigeon-holed idea on why we are all indentured thieves, but even then, the best you can come up with is some "who gives a fuck" case of plagiarism in an area of the world where that's expected.

Taking a step back, the visual arts industry is not plagued by the same issues that the multimedia industry has and is more about protecting against plagiarism, not little Johnny downloading digital copies of an artist's catalog, because said artist would be complete moron for not watermarking in the first place.

How you transition that argument into some sympathetic excuse for corporations, who are demonstrating their unwillingness to change with the market and continue using their money to influence the govt., its beyond me.

I will continue to buy indy albums and films while pirating all the garbage out there and maybe walk away with a few that were worth buying, or watch the handful of movies at the theater worth watching every year and sleep like a newborn.

You have fun buying those ringtones and shitty James Cameron movies, I'm sure your friends will think of you as some benevolent second-coming of Christ.

[Ashmada]

Entertainment blames the high prices on pirates.

Pirates blame the pirating on Entertainment's high prices.

Pick a side. Fucking lolz if you think they would honestly turn a better profit again by dropping prices.

Fucking lulz if you think entertainment would be cheaper if piracy was eradicated.

And yes my husband is in the movie industry, which is exactly why I support it. I don't want him to lose his job over people being criminals.

"Fuck the presumption of innocence and privacy, I have financial interests!"
Who cares about pillars of democracy when evil evil pirates are threatening your husband's job, heh?

Edit: probably need to restate it: I don't defend criminal behaviour; I oppose excessive (and borderline totalitarian) reaction. The end does not justify the means.

(unrelatedly: mea culpa on the South Park reference, I'd forgotten that line)

[Kerberoz]

Pick a side. Fucking lolz if you think they would honestly turn a better profit again by dropping prices.

steampowered.com

What?

[Ksandra]

If you think about it, netflix has done more against film piracy then any legislation ever did. Besides, IP legislature uses a completely different argument then your proposed owning the right to profit.

I fully support netflix and have it. :3. See, that to me is a good legal way to push the industry into making things cheaper. Netflix may not have it the exact way you want it (some things can't be streamed for example) but ordering it, and making it more and more popular will eventually 'cause other distributors to change the way they do things to compete. And I think they care more about competing against netflix than they do about competing against piracy.

"Fuck the presumption of innocence and privacy, I have financial interests!"
Who cares about pillars of democracy when evil evil pirates are threatening your husband's job, heh?

Ya me caring about pillars of democracy from the other end totally makes me against the innocent people stealing shit. Don't be stupid. We have rights just as much as you do. Democracy isn't just for the whiny.

[Qalbert]

steampowered.com

What?

Fucking this. If you've been in Bentertainment you know I'm all about downloading stuff, fo free. Yet I have a steam library of well over 50 games, all legitimately purchased.

[Qalbert]

also, for those of you who haven't heard, netflix is taking another big step and producing their own series, and if it does well I imagine many more will be in the works.

[guartz]

miokomioko, let me outline the grey legal area IP and copyright fall under. Maybe it will help you understand the bastardization of justice IP laws create.

Let me present a scenario to you. Let's say Jake takes a picture of a lion, and sells that picture to Bob. What's implied in that transaction is that Bob owns that picture and may do with it as he pleases. However, with copyright laws, that transaction is fraudulent, because Bob doesn't really own that picture. Jake can restrict the use of that picture severely. Bob can no longer, say, make a copy of that picture and give it to his friends. In other words, Bob payed for that picture but it is not fully his, Jake still partly owns it, or rather, Jake owns the idea and concept of that picture. Now here is the question of justice, what's the difference between Jake taking the picture and thusly owning it, and Bob purchasing the picture and thusly owning it as well? The answer? Copyright law.


However, let's say Jake is legally savvy and before selling a picture to Bob he enters into a contract with Bob that states Bob can't redistribute that picture of a lion without specific permission from Jake and/or specific compensation, and if Bob violates that contract Jake can claim specific damages, chiefly loss of potential profit. Which is perfectly reasonable, however Intellectual property laws will allow Jake to claim damages from people who had no part in that contract. For example, if Bob shared that picture with Fred. Fred becomes liable for Jake's loss of profits, even though Jake and Fred had never entered into a contract.

Do you begin to see the problems with these unilateral laws?

[Rhinox]

And yes my husband is in the movie industry, which is exactly why I support it. I don't want him to lose his job over people being criminals.

don't know how I missed this

Fucking LOL

Your husband isn't gonna lose his shitty minimum wage security guard job because of piracy.

[guartz]

don't know how I missed this

Fucking LOL

You're husband isn't gonna lose his shitty minimum wage security guard job because of piracy.

wow, you're a douche.

[Guyverarmor]

wow, you're a douche.

Took you this long to notice this?

[Plow]

steampowered.com

What?

again, netflix, rhapsody, etc.

sorry, but when you can pay $11 a month for all the Blu-Ray you can watch, industry overpricing is not a valid complaint

and, again, when you can pay $10-15 a month for all the music you want, your excuses are gone

[guartz]

You know, there is virtually no empirical data on how piracy effects the profits on the film industry.

[Elrina]

There are, whether anybody likes to admit it or not, a ton of arguments both for and against "internet piracy".

For instance, not all forms of copyright or IP should be considered equal. Art is not the same as a book, which isn't the same as a movie, which isn't the same as a television show, which isn't the same as a video game, and when each is "pirated" it effects it's industry and author differently. The quality of the product, and whether or not it's an individual author or a small company or a large corporation changes each as well.

Copying stuff online effects everything differently, and whether it's any good or not also plays into it. Yes, you can call downloading something without paying for it stealing, technically. But just like there are a lot of people who don't know how easy it is, there are a lot of people (imo) who don't even realize it's an issue, who don't even think about it, it's just a part of the way things are. Entertainment on the internet is free, and this and every other argument, discussion, and debate aside, every new law and every individual prosecuted aside, entertainment on the internet is most likely going to stay free. They press harder, we find better ways to go anonymous when downloading. I remember when bittorrent first showed up and the splash it made.

Is downloading wallpapers on the internet for free illegal? As often as not, probably, but with all the image boards and websites giving them away for free, the average person would be hard pressed to even be able to find out whether or not there's a copyright attached to a specific random picture if they wanted to.

And copying movies/television, and streaming them, can effect them in different ways. I have a Netflix subscription, and it's a good idea, but I think the delay for new discs and the crappy library available for streaming is dumb. I would pay a little more, or pay for Hulu Plus, or whatever, if the service offered a reliable way to stream media without a huge delay involved. I'm talking like next day on television shows, and a week of disc release for movies. As it stands, they still value the product too highly, so I continue to pirate what I can't find on Netflix or in any local Redboxes, and buy only a select number of the movies I actually rent, stuff I specifically want to support.

Brandon Sanderson offers a copy of Warbreaker for free on his website. He made it available, for free, as he wrote it, and right up to the published edit is available for free online. I still bought a copy for myself, and a couple more copies as gifts for friends, because it's a damn good book and he's a damn good author and I'll pay for whatever he makes available.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned this study, as it's pretty relevant. http://torrentfreak.com/internet-pir...cludes-110203/

Piracy's effect on sales, even when it obviously does have one (and there are instances it does), is still only theoretical at best, because it can't be proven that the people who pirate didn't also pay to see the movie, or buy it, or did neither, and arguing that every time it's watched is real money lost is just stupid. I saw the first Pirates of the Caribbean in theaters twice, I also pirated it and watched it at home like four times before the DVD was released, and then bought it on DVD and it's sitting on a shelf next to me. It also doesn't show the numerous reasons why it may have or may not have. If it's a shitty movie, piracy/renting will likely just make the overall box office and DVD sales drop lower because it's a shitty movie. If it's something like The Game of Thrones on HBO, HBO should make it available on their website, either with advertising to stream or a small fee to download, so that people aren't forced to pay for an HBO package just to watch it, and their only other recourse to "pirate" it. Generally when something is good, people who enjoy it are willing to pay a little bit to enjoy/support it, if given a legitimate and reasonable way to do so.

When it was impossible to do so, the business plan was solid. Now that committing a crime is so easy and so easy to get away with, it's a faulty business plan.

It's like trying to set up a portrait photography business where, upon upgrading your equipment from archaic systems of film, developer, and darkroom hours to digital means to speed up your workflow, it comes with some asshole that stands over your shoulder and snaps a shot of the same clients and then offers it to them for free instead of buying your print. The clients taking the free print aren't necessarily the ones at fault outside of being morally corrupt, it's the douche bag who's ruining your business by creating this opportunity for the clients. His existence made your previously solid business plan no longer sustainable.

I want to specifically respond to your example of the old school photographer upgrading to digital to "speed up the workflow", which basically means to make more money from being able to do more business faster, easier, and cheaper. Yes, the business model worked with the previous level of technology, and no, it doesn't inherently deserve to remain viable when the technology enabling it becomes outdated. Why should a maker of content become able to do their end of it faster, easier, and cheaper, and yet not change their business model to make it faster, easier and cheaper to access for the consumer as well? They don't have a fundamental right to make more money as technology progresses, while everyone else is required to continue paying the same rate. It isn't just "that guy" that made his previously solid business plan no longer sustainable, it was the changeover to digital, the new technology, that made it inherently less viable to maintain. Change or die, it's a fact of life, and corporations need to learn that just like individuals are forced to.

Business models need to change. Advertising needs to be considered. Monthly subscriptions making large libraries of content (like Netflix) need to be made available so that people are able to access what they want, when they want, yet have a legitimate way of doing so without having to pay a premium to "own" a copy. Blockbuster charged a lot of money for renting movies for a lot of years, then came along Netflix, and then Redbox, and now they're practically bankrupt (if they aren't already). And the MPAA threw a fit, because Redbox and Netflix were affecting DVD sales, because people would rather pay $1~ or a small monthly fee to rent their movies then buy all of them. And even if they liked buying movies, that made it possible to find out if they actually wanted to buy them or not, and they realized that they didn't want to buy all of them. That's why there's something like a 28~ day delay before Redbox gets movies from certain studios, and there's been an ongoing lawsuit regarding it, because it wasn't enough that it was a legal venue for us to access the media, it was impacting their bottom line anyway and thus it needed to be stopped or slowed down.

This is about streaming. It's about their bottom line. It's about them wanting to be able to take advantage of new tech to make things cheaper for them, or spend money like it's water on another Michael Bay movie, and still recoup their money whether the movie is good or bad by charging us the same, if not more. There have been real examples of movies that were hugely popular, made crazy amounts of money, and yet were also pirated on an enormous scale.

People, and especially corporations, don't have a fundamental right to make whatever they want and still be able to recoup their expenses and make a profit simply by keeping people ignorant of the value of the product before they pay for it. With art as an example, since that seems to be your field, if I want a signed print of Michael Whelan's art for the cover of The Way of Kings, I know I'm going to have to pay $95 for it, but I also know exactly what I'm paying for before I do so.

Arguing semantics over copying/stealing is a complete load of crap that's just a method of dodging the topic and justifying the crime being committed. Also, I don't think that animation was trying to do that, it was most definitely trying to paint piracy in a nicer light. Perhaps the word "theft" in a legal context needs a revised definition? Or you can just use a really basic definition like "taking something without paying for it." I don't think the RIAA needs to rethink the use of the words stealing/theft/etc. when they can easily be defined (still accurately) to incorporate piracy... even more so when piracy eventually damages a creator's potential income, or previous income. It just gets sticky when you're speaking about potential this and value that.

Damaging and devaluing are more appropriate terms, but there's obviously (as seen by the criminal apologists everywhere and in this thread) very little understanding in the average brain that the act of giving away infinite copies of something reduces its monetary value.

Giving away an infinite number of physical copies of something damages it's monetary value. Giving away an infinite number of digital copies of a digital product affects it's value in a completely different way, based on how it's distributed, what it costs physically (if it's even available physically), and probably a number of other factors not immediately coming to mind. The problem is that the "crime", isn't always considered a crime. Is everyone who download's a copy of Sanderson's Warbreaker committing a crime just because they're getting a free digital copy of something copyrighted and published, despite his allowance of it? If the original authors of something make it available both for free and for a price, is getting it for free a crime simply because it's copyrighted and sold as well? The media industries are torn themselves between artists who embrace this "crime", and those who are against it, and it isn't always as simple as saying "small timers are for it, and successful artists/corporations are against it". How is it a crime, how is the average person supposed to even know the difference, when even the people who generate the media don't all agree on whether or not it's a crime.

Convicting people of a felony, destroying lives, because the "industry" doesn't want to have to change their business models to reflect the changes in technology and culture (of which the internet, and what is available on it, is now a large part of), is stupid.

That doesn't make it right to pirate material, and I'd much rather pay for what I download. But I'd rather pay a reasonable price for something that I know the quality of before I pay for it, because I don't have the money to just drop it on every new thing that comes out whether it's good or not, and in this day and age, I shouldn't have to. Like I said, I'd definitely pay a fee to have access to a more extensive streaming library than Netflix, so that I had no reason to pirate something just because I couldn't rent it locally or stream it online legitimately (and having to wait a couple days for the latest Netflix movie to get sent back, then a couple more days for Rocky 1 to show up because the Redboxes nearby don't have it and they don't have it available to stream for whatever retarded reason isn't good enough). As it stands, I can download a movie in 20~30 minutes, a television show in less (or more if I'm downloading a full season), and watch them in HD. But I'd rather be legit and have advertising mixed into it like on Hulu, or pay a monthly fee to be able to avoid the advertising.


tl;dr - Isn't the worst part of this supposed to be the fact that they're wanting to wiretap people who they suspect of piracy? I mean what the fuck, the music/movie/television industries don't want to change their business model to reflect a change in technology, so people's lives and privacy (and often their family's and/or friends, simply for being their family or friend) are both being destroyed? I don't care if people are for or against internet downloading, for or against "piracy", that's fucked up, period.

[guartz]

Long winded, but worth reading.