http://torrentfreak.com/cyberlocker-ecosystem-shocked-as-big-players-take-drastic-action-120123/

This is just one article of a few lurking on the internet. For those not wishing to read, the aftershock of Megaupload being taken down and it's CEO being arrested is now being felt at quite a force. Many popular filesharing sites have decided to remove their rewarding system and in more extreme cases, banned accounts and removed a mass of uploaded files. What this has ended up doing to said websites is allowing their users to download content they've uploaded - but that's it. No more downloading other content from other people. Whether this is a pre-emptive move so they don't get taken down as well, or a sudden realisation that their websites are policed poorly, is not certain. What is certain though is that filesharing websites may never be the same again.

Thoughts?

If people want something, they should pay for it. The self-righteous defense of piracy is getting old. You are not entitled to other people's work for free. It's not the same as stealing, but it is still wrong to put stuff up for mass consumption that someone else put time and effort into making.

So, I am glad that filesharing websites that allow the illegal distribution of other people's material are tightening up. I just wish many in the entertainment industry would realise that making online content easier to access would result in increased sales and less piracy.

Edit: Just realised that my post could look like it is pointed at you, Jovius, it is not.

The problem is that those sites are absolutely essential for software development. When you are looking up a custom driver or a very specific homemade utility or something, you are not going to be able to find it if these sites go away.

I know "open source" sounds like nonsense piracy apologism, but seriously, you can't work on open source stuff without places like megaupload existing. Any kind of pc tinkering and you're going to need a custom something that one person made one time and put on megaupload.

There is significantly more illegitimate use on sites like that than legitimate use, but the legitimate use basically cannot exist otherwise and that's an issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What bothers me, though, is that the media companies don't want to do the legwork for their lawsuits anymore. They want more and more laws allowing them to ask the state to do their work for them. They want to take down entire sites instead of requesting specific files. They want to defend their IPs, but they want a free ride.

If a giant company infringes on my IP, I have to get a lawyer and sue them for years. If I infringe on theirs, they just have to ask youtube nicely and it's gone without any due process. That's kind of irritating considering they never account for fair use. Wide nets are not the way to go when speech is on the line.

Da Boss wrote:If people want something, they should pay for it. The self-righteous defense of piracy is getting old. You are not entitled to other people's work for free. It's not the same as stealing, but it is still wrong to put stuff up for mass consumption that someone else put time and effort into making.

So, I am glad that filesharing websites that allow the illegal distribution of other people's material are tightening up. I just wish many in the entertainment industry would realise that making online content easier to access would result in increased sales and less piracy.

Edit: Just realised that my post could look like it is pointed at you, Jovius, it is not.

Actually, this demonstrates SOPA is already in work.
I hope you dont agree with that?

Rented Tritium pretty much summed it up.

Even more, you really need filesharing, not for piracy only.

thenoobbomb wrote:Actually, this demonstrates SOPA is already in work.

Actually, it doesn't. This is a straightforward copyright criminal complaint (with attendant additional crimes and conspiracies charged).

Here's the indictment.

thenoobbomb wrote:I hope you dont agree with that?

Le sigh.

Tritium: I use open source software quite a bit, and I've never downloaded any of it from a site like megaupload.

The open source content providers are left alone, but if they are using a site involved in prolific illegal activity to distribute, they must expect the long arm of the law to catch them even inadvertantly at some point. The answer for them is that the sites they use must be policed more stringently, and they must agitate for more stringent policing so that they have a stable platform to work from.

thenoobbomb: SOPA is something else entirely than a site being taken down for allowing widespread piracy.

Tritium, you do have a good point about the advantage large corporations have over individuals with regard to lawsuits. That does indeed suck, but it is a separate issue to piracy.

Da Boss wrote:If people want something, they should pay for it. The self-righteous defense of piracy is getting old. You are not entitled to other people's work for free. It's not the same as stealing, but it is still wrong to put stuff up for mass consumption that someone else put time and effort into making.

What about stuff that isn't on general release and therefore cannot be paid for? I know of a case of material for the soundtrack for a TV ending up on the internet after the composer (allegedly) distributed it on the quiet. Although really, while the composer created it, he doesn't own it, merely has some royalty rights. Furthermore, when the Official Soundtrack was released, the track selection was slightly different meaning there never has been a legitimate way to get them all. On another occasion a composer sold a very limited run of a soundtrack to a made for TV movie. It was a few years ago, it will never receive a full release, and the copies available were never available on general retail.

There's also much older music that has never been released on forms other than vinyl. I think these cases are definitely in the grey, it's not like downloading the latest Hannah Montana stuff, it doesn't hurt anyone and supplies a demand the only way it can be.

There's also the distribution of fan made material, that may make use of copyright footage and soundtracks, but has a lot of other work put in to make it something that isn't generally available.

I don't believe in categorical imperatives, and it's easy to find fringe cases where these things are acceptable, but you know that's not what I was talking about, right?

Might as well just try to shut the whole internet down at this rate. Excuse me while I upload...hmm... copyrighted images all over the whole of the internet on all forums, facebook, and anywhere else I can. I think I'll try using a famous painting.

This crap is nonsense, and I can't believe it came out of the state I live in. megaupload was a file host, the issue is what was uploaded, and this has been a longstanding issue since the creation of file hosts. It just so happens there is a little more to megaupload that's hurting them right now in regards to this, but dammit all.

Can you explain why it's nonsense?

juraigamer wrote:
This crap is nonsense, and I can't believe it came out of the state I live in. megaupload was a file host, the issue is what was uploaded...

The issue was Megaupload profiting from copyrighted material, and its longstanding history of ignoring copyright complaints.

Open Source will survive.

Anyone can set up a file-sharing website, issue secure user accounts, and purge pirated copyright material and the people uploading them.

It helps keep out the riff-raff if you charge for the service.

dogma wrote:

juraigamer wrote:
This crap is nonsense, and I can't believe it came out of the state I live in. megaupload was a file host, the issue is what was uploaded...

The issue was Megaupload profiting from copyrighted material, and its longstanding history of ignoring copyright complaints.

Yup. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the copyrighted material wasn't there.

Well... nah we still would.

No-one has said anything about how Aspera Faspex has been taken down for file sharing.

juraigamer wrote:
Yup. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the copyrighted material wasn't there.

Well... nah we still would.

Well, there's something of a grey area here.

Youtube is what I'm most familiar with, so I'll go there. Youtube is very judicious in ensuring that its partners do not host copyrighted material, and just as judicious in ensuring that any copyright complaint is responded to; generally favoring the party filing the complaint. However, Youtube still hosts a large amount of copyrighted material. Either because it hasn't received a complaint, or because i has refused the complaint. Now, there is an argument to be made, that even if the content in question generates no ad revenue, that Youtube profits from its by way of incidental traffic.

This gray area is what SOPA and PIPA sought to codify, in favor of major publishers.

dogma wrote:Well, there's something of a grey area here.

Youtube is what I'm most familiar with, so I'll go there. Youtube is very judicious in ensuring that its partners do not host copyrighted material, and just as judicious in ensuring that any copyright complaint is responded to; generally favoring the party filing the complaint. However, Youtube still hosts a large amount of copyrighted material. Either because it hasn't received a complaint, or because i has refused the complaint. Now, there is an argument to be made, that even if the content in question generates no ad revenue, that Youtube profits from its by way of incidental traffic.

This gray area is what SOPA and PIPA sought to codify, in favor of major publishers.

I'm not sure what you mean by "grey area." From the context of your post it sounds like you're talking about Youtube's responsibility (or lack thereof) to takedown material which may or may not be infringing.

SOPA (haven't gone through PIPA) has nothing to do with these types of "grey areas," it has to do with international sites that are beyond the reach of DMCA takedown requests.

edit: there is a bit of a broadening of the criminal copyright statute, but I don't think that's what you were referring to either.

biccat wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "grey area." From the context of your post it sounds like you're talking about Youtube's responsibility (or lack thereof) to takedown material which may or may not be infringing.

If only Youtube got 2 points for the takedown, and the offending content got 2 points for the reversal, I would be cool.

biccat wrote:
SOPA (haven't gone through PIPA) has nothing to do with these types of "grey areas," it has to do with international sites that are beyond the reach of DMCA takedown requests.

edit: there is a bit of a broadening of the criminal copyright statute, but I don't think that's what you were referring to either.

I'm referring to Sec. 201.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
SOPA (haven't gone through PIPA) has nothing to do with these types of "grey areas," it has to do with international sites that are beyond the reach of DMCA takedown requests.

edit: there is a bit of a broadening of the criminal copyright statute, but I don't think that's what you were referring to either.

I'm referring to Sec. 201.

Section 201 is amending the current law. I had redlined the act in another thread.

If I recall correctly, the act is amended by inserting "including by electronic means" and "public performances" throughout. I don't think there was ever any question that copied material on Youtube is in fact infringing simply because it is streamed.

Although if you've read an article or something on section 201, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it.

biccat wrote:
Although if you've read an article or something on section 201, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it.

To be honest, and I may have said this before, I heard about the law, read the law, and sort of cast about as to its actual effect.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Although if you've read an article or something on section 201, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it.

To be honest, and I may have said this before, I heard about the law, read the law, and sort of cast about as to its actual effect.

Fair enough.

I don't think anyone's really that concerned about section 201, at least not from what I've read. A lot of people really don't know what the law is, they just know that it gives corporations the power to shut down pirating websites.

God I hate being on the same side as Chris Dodd and Bill Maher. Although in my defense, people are paying Chris Dodd to side with me and Bill Maher didn't read the law, he just thinks Religulous would've been a smash hit if it weren't for those darn right-wing pirates.

(caution: biased site, video of him being a blithering idiot at the link)

Honestly I’m not surprised by this. The current “wild west” environment for electronic piracy was never going to be a permanent thing and there was always some sort of change on the horizon. Crackdowns on the distribution of electronic piracy have been discussed, as far as I am aware, for at least 5-10 years now.

The commercialisation of the internet and the accessibility of electronic distribution are still fairly new thing and a failure to adapt to the new environment IMO is what probably caused it. Probably the only real solution to the issue, as said by the Da Boss, would be for the entertainment industry to focus increasing the accessibly of content electronically (as well as decrease the price of electronic media). This has already started to happen already (with things like iTunes, ebooks, PSN/XBL, netflix) but more still needs to be done.

Personally this wouldn’t affect me as I’ve always liked buying products as apposed to downloading them.

Rented Tritium wrote:The problem is that those sites are absolutely essential for software development. When you are looking up a custom driver or a very specific homemade utility or something, you are not going to be able to find it if these sites go away.

I know "open source" sounds like nonsense piracy apologism, but seriously, you can't work on open source stuff without places like megaupload existing. Any kind of pc tinkering and you're going to need a custom something that one person made one time and put on megaupload.

There is significantly more illegitimate use on sites like that than legitimate use, but the legitimate use basically cannot exist otherwise and that's an issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What bothers me, though, is that the media companies don't want to do the legwork for their lawsuits anymore. They want more and more laws allowing them to ask the state to do their work for them. They want to take down entire sites instead of requesting specific files. They want to defend their IPs, but they want a free ride.

If a giant company infringes on my IP, I have to get a lawyer and sue them for years. If I infringe on theirs, they just have to ask youtube nicely and it's gone without any due process. That's kind of irritating considering they never account for fair use. Wide nets are not the way to go when speech is on the line.

Honestly, there are better options than sites like megaupload for open source coding....

https://github.com/

I have never understood why they didn't shut down the library's. All that copy writed material being passed around. Or radio stations, which broadcast product on the first wireless networks. Other peoples IP and copyrighted material needs to be protected, but there should be reasonable standards for fair use. Especially in light of the US supreme court having decided that congress can recopywrite something that has already been in the public domain.

Insurgency Walker wrote:I have never understood why they didn't shut down the library's. All that copy writed material being passed around. Or radio stations, which broadcast product on the first wireless networks. Other peoples IP and copyrighted material needs to be protected, but there should be reasonable standards for fair use. Especially in light of the US supreme court having decided that congress can recopywrite something that has already been in the public domain.

You're trolling, right?

If you're not, I don't think you quite understand how radio stations and libraries work.

Honestly, anyone who tries to claim megaupload or any site like it is used primarily for legal uses is kidding themselves. It’s just nonsense. A move to shut down sites unwilling to effectively police the material on their site seems only a natural and sensible effort.

That doesn’t mean the ever expanding length of copyrights, and the incredibly over the top punishments for small scale piracy aren’t an issue, of course.

To me, though, when you look at the percentage of people who download copyrighted material regularly, it seems obvious you can’t ever stop it entirely. There will always be new download formats that skip around the law, no matter what laws you write you can’t stop supply when there’s a billion odd people looking to download. The genie is out of the bottle.

The thing you can do is offer a product that’s superior, at a price that’s low enough that people are willing to pay for those superior features. Among my old group of friends I was the only who still bought computer games, they simply downloaded as a matter of course, but once Steam came out, offering the games at a price significantly lower than retail, and with the convenience of download they all swapped over. I think there’s only one that still uses pirated games, and he still buys anything with multiplayer if he wants to play with the rest of the guys.

It’s a model that movie and music companies really need to get behind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Insurgency Walker wrote:I have never understood why they didn't shut down the library's. All that copy writed material being passed around. Or radio stations, which broadcast product on the first wireless networks. Other peoples IP and copyrighted material needs to be protected, but there should be reasonable standards for fair use. Especially in light of the US supreme court having decided that congress can recopywrite something that has already been in the public domain.

Umm, radio stations track every song they play, and submit these numbers to the RCA with payment for the use of those songs, who then forward royalty cheques on to the artists involved.

Libraries don't create new copies*, they merely loan out the copy they already bought. Like you taking a DVD you bought and lending it to a friend, or selling it at a garage sale.

Yes, there should be reasonable standards for fair use. That has nothing to do with making a movie freely available on an upload site.



*There are also specific allowances under statute for copying, but only for preservation of rare items, not really what we're talking about here.

sebster wrote:The thing you can do is offer a product that’s superior, at a price that’s low enough that people are willing to pay for those superior features. Among my old group of friends I was the only who still bought computer games, they simply downloaded as a matter of course, but once Steam came out, offering the games at a price significantly lower than retail, and with the convenience of download they all swapped over. I think there’s only one that still uses pirated games, and he still buys anything with multiplayer if he wants to play with the rest of the guys.

It’s a model that movie and music companies really need to get behind.

Pretty much this. Problem is the big American (lets be honest, they are American) businesses trying to get new laws like SOPA and PIPA through will not try to encourage sales from better services and cheaper prices because they won't make as much money; in their eyes anyway. Valve's pulled it off and they rake in millions (I assume), so why nobody else does it in other entertainment industries is rather confounding. I suppose it'll change when the current CEO's retire with gold-plated diamond-encrusted pensions and fresher people will take over with a better mindset.

Also I'd like to make it clear that I'm not condoning what's happening as a sin - only pointing it out since it hasn't been mentioned yet. I've never used torrenting or filesharing websites to gain illegal material

sebster wrote:The thing you can do is offer a product that’s superior, at a price that’s low enough that people are willing to pay for those superior features. Among my old group of friends I was the only who still bought computer games, they simply downloaded as a matter of course, but once Steam came out, offering the games at a price significantly lower than retail, and with the convenience of download they all swapped over. I think there’s only one that still uses pirated games, and he still buys anything with multiplayer if he wants to play with the rest of the guys.

It’s a model that movie and music companies really need to get behind.

iTunes and Netflix already apparently have satisfied these market needs.

Filesharing and torrent websites are really the last hurdles in the anti-piracy movement.

I'm not sure how they'll deal with torrents. Although eliminating easily accessible torrents will go a long way towards bringing piracy down to managable levels.

Book Publishers vs.Libraries

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/business/for-libraries-and-publishers-an-e-book-tug-of-war.html?_r=1

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/law_librarian_blog/2012/01/publishers-hate-libraries-but-we-sort-of-knew-that.html

I guess publishers do hate public libraries.

Didn't we have this article some years ago when the same thing happened to Napster?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Filesharing and torrent websites are really the last hurdles in the anti-piracy movement.

Until the next one pops up.

Corporate America is a big issue with a lot of things. SOPA and PIPA, imo, were the Industry's knee-jerk reaction to a problem they don't want to deal with. Instead of trying to make the material harder to crack and distribute lets just make the States do it, because their budget is so much larger than ours. (Sarcasm, it really isn't.)

But, I do agree that websites do need to be held accountable for their material that they host. If they're being petitioned with citations of piracy then they need to investigate it and take it down. However, the industry needs to do it's part as well.

One of the reasons the SOPA and PIPA act's are getting a major staunch resistance, is because the act would allow them to block (censor) websites from US citizens. That for most is a scarey thought if the Government and Private Companies could block the flow of information.

Not to mention SOPA would employ Deep-packet inspection. These new devices (which are already out and available by the way) for traffic packets to be pushed through them and then they go through not just the header information but the ENTIRE packet. Which can also be reconstructed by the controller of the device. In other words, someone could read your e-mails or anything else you're sending/receiving through the internet. They scan layers 2-7 of internet traffic. Meaning skype calls, yahoo messenger conversations, anything and everything you send or receive can potentially be recorded. How does that sound for banking information?

Piracy isn't ok, but find a better way of doing it that isn't going to infringe on my privacy.

Good business is all about getting other people to spend their money so you can keep yours. In that sense, SOPA and PIPA make total sense.

Kanluwen wrote:

Insurgency Walker wrote:I have never understood why they didn't shut down the library's. All that copy writed material being passed around. Or radio stations, which broadcast product on the first wireless networks. Other peoples IP and copyrighted material needs to be protected, but there should be reasonable standards for fair use. Especially in light of the US supreme court having decided that congress can recopywrite something that has already been in the public domain.

You're trolling, right?

If you're not, I don't think you quite understand how radio stations and libraries work.

Yes, it is a bit of a troll. However.
think about what people can do with library access. You can take out a book, and copy it. Pirate it. This is not a criminal action for the library. The radio stations broadcast can be recorded by every child with a tape recorder ,( noted bad example due to freedom of airwaves). The computer allows for the diligence of sites like YouTube or other files sharing to help prevent their service from being used for illegal purpose. However, electronic media is creating a world where the providers of the service are under a greater burden than previous providers. Throw on top of that a legal system that can decide at a whim what is copyrited or recopywrited, and you have a system that is just as exploitable by legal shenanigans as by illegal pirates.

They did try to stop people home recording.

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

Similarly when everything was on floppy disk there was no copy protection. Copying was only made difficult with games by asking you to do silly things like type a specific word from the game's manual ("what is word 6 of line 8 of page 5") and the manual was often printed in a fashion to make photocopying difficult and high quality scanning was not available to many. They couldn't make the disk impossible to copy, and even the earlier CDs only had the crudest of copy protection if any.

You could simply copy the disk, we always did to make backups because a floppy disk with moving parts and easily exposed magnetic tape is fairly easy to damage and a lot of the time games were actually more expensive back then than they are today. DOOM was £30 I think when I had that back in the early 90s, games don't cost much more than than now! Space Hulk was £40 !!!

iTunes and Netflix already apparently have satisfied these market needs.

Not entirely. I'd say iTunes and Amazon MP3 have managed to satisfy much of the need for music. Given the inexpensiveness of the songs, averaging a buck, and the convience of the services I'd say that they are likely managing to capture most of the market of people who are actually willing to pay for music.

Netflix isn't really the same. It's a rental service and their streaming side was/is notorioiusly slim in it's pickings. What the movie and TV companies need to do is the iTunes or Amazon style service where they offer Blu-Ray quality downloads, with features, for $5 to $10.

Filesharing and torrent websites are really the last hurdles in the anti-piracy movement.

No, internet connections are. So long as people have access to large amounts of bandwidth they'll still be able to transmit copyrighted material. That was the point of SOPA and PIPA, not to hit just a few big targets like Megaupload, but to give them the ability to take a machete to the internet and hack down ANYONE who they even suspected of thinking about distributing anything they might want to copyright someday.

And seriously, stopping torrents? Good luck with that.

But, I do agree that websites do need to be held accountable for their material that they host. If they're being petitioned with citations of piracy then they need to investigate it and take it down. However, the industry needs to do it's part as well.

Ok, how? When you're dealing with the volume of data one of these sites would need to be able to handle to be profitable how do you scan everything that crosses your servers? What if people encrypt it? No, so long as a service is complying with existing laws and removes the offending content when notified keep enforcement where it should be, with the actual pirates.

I didn't know about Amazon MP3! Awesome. I don't want to have to deal with iTunes, so I was looking for another service to purchase my music from- I lost my collection a couple of years ago.

I like it a lot. A little while back they made your account a cloud drive so you can download the song onto any device you own. No more one download limit.

Tyyr wrote:Netflix isn't really the same. It's a rental service and their streaming side was/is notorioiusly slim in it's pickings.

The problem is that it WANTS to have more stuff in its streaming side, but entertainment companies prevent it from doing so.

Amazon MP3 is indeed the best thing since sliced bread. You should be using it.

They will be getting a big pile of my money come friday, when I gets paid

It's not that good ya'know. I've used it twice: first time I bought a Disturbed album. The tracks I bought won't play on my phone. I bought another single track and that plays on my phone. Not sure if bad download...

Probably a bad download. They distribute DRM free MP3's so I can't really imagine why they wouldn't play on any modern phone. Then again I've never downloaded an entire album.

The problem is that it WANTS to have more stuff in its streaming side, but entertainment companies prevent it from doing so.

Oh I'm aware of it. I was a Netflix member until their most recent feth up. The entertainment companies are fighting a losing battle. This is their chance to monetize this method of distribution. They are steadfastly clinging to printed media sales. Ask the music industry how well that works.

biccat wrote:iTunes and Netflix already apparently have satisfied these market needs.

To some extent. Netflix is still a limited library, and iTunes is fairly specific to Apple platforms, and has some truly obnoxious ownership limitations.

These companies are a good start, but we need others to enter the market and provide greater variety, and more reliable control over our downloaded material.

Filesharing and torrent websites are really the last hurdles in the anti-piracy movement.

I'm not sure how they'll deal with torrents. Although eliminating easily accessible torrents will go a long way towards bringing piracy down to managable levels.

I'm not sure they can, other than to offer a product that's more reliable (no hidden trojans, no porn spliced halfway through) and easier to download (there's a problem when I can find a pirated copy in seconds, but I have to spend hours hunting through legal sites for a copy).

What I'm saying is we need better versions of iTunes and Netflix.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Juvieus Kaine wrote:Pretty much this. Problem is the big American (lets be honest, they are American) businesses trying to get new laws like SOPA and PIPA through will not try to encourage sales from better services and cheaper prices because they won't make as much money; in their eyes anyway. Valve's pulled it off and they rake in millions (I assume), so why nobody else does it in other entertainment industries is rather confounding. I suppose it'll change when the current CEO's retire with gold-plated diamond-encrusted pensions and fresher people will take over with a better mindset.

A lot of it is just people stuck in old modes of business, seeing the internet as a threat, not an opportunity. Add in the complexity of copyright laws making it very hard to set up a decent service, and no-one having any idea how much anything should cost and I think that explains most of the delay in getting stuff on-line.

Also I'd like to make it clear that I'm not condoning what's happening as a sin - only pointing it out since it hasn't been mentioned yet. I've never used torrenting or filesharing websites to gain illegal material

I take PDF copies of 40K and WHFB army books, for armies other than my own, so I can read up on what I might expect in a game. I'd never buy them otherwise, and always buy the army book for any army I'm actually collecting. Oh, and my parent's give pirated DVDs they bought in Bali, that I only really take because it's kind of quaint

Other than that, I downloaded Game of Thrones because you can't get it here otherwise. And used to watch movies my housemates downloaded through our network, but I'd always buy them if I liked them. And when Game of Thrones finally comes out over here I'll buy that.

I agree that artists and the companies that finance them deserve compensation for their products. If they make them available on-line I'd happily buy them.

sebster wrote:(there's a problem when I can find a pirated copy in seconds, but I have to spend hours hunting through legal sites for a copy).

I KNOW! This is a problem I have when I'm trying to find certain programs to watch online. I WANT to watch them legally, commercials and all ala services like Hulu, but I can't fething find the damnable things.

But I could find most of them illegally, if I wanted to, in a two second google search.

That is the exact problem that animation video imports faced.

Why would a viewer wait a year for a disc of a show when he can watch it subtitled within a week or two of the original broadcast?

Why can't major media publishing companies manage to put out legal subbed shows in a timely manner when a bunch of fans can do it?

The discrepancy between these situations has pretty much gutted the North American anime DVD industry.

Instead of trying to make the material harder to crack and distribute

Steam, widely-considered the best DRM method while also providing many, many services to its users, is actually still easy to crack even though its pretty much the hardest DRM out there.

How much harder can they make it?

a timely manner when a bunch of fans can do it?

Fans have much more time and don't actually need to be paid.

I hate to harp on it but the business model's gotta change. Like you said, the anime production company should at the very least be producing a subtitled version of the show for U.S. distribution. Charge $0.50 or $1 an episode and post them up immediately after the show airs. I know I'd have happily paid for the shows I used to watch like that. The big reason to pirate the shows was exactly what you said. I could watch a fan-sub'd pirated copy of a show within a few days, a week tops of it airing instead of waiting six months or a year, maybe even more, for the actual DVD to come out. And when it does come out, I've already seen it, a lot.

Hmm, maybe instead of bothering with DVD sales just focus entirely on the streaming. After an episode airs put it up for download for a buck or two. Maybe more for short run OVAs but at $1 an episode a season long anime will generate almost as much revenue as DVD would and since you're offering it in a timely manner probably make you a hell of a lot more since it's likely to be pirated less. Hell, you'd probably make even more since you'd be reducing each episode to the level of an impulse purchase. A buck or two at a time is a lot easier to rationalize than $30 or more for a DVD.

Steam, widely-considered the best DRM method while also providing many, many services to its users, is actually still easy to crack even though its pretty much the hardest DRM out there.

How much harder can they make it?

That's the point, we're already at the point where DRM in it's quest to be harder to crack is starting to intrude on the paying customer's experience. Steam is what I would call "hard enough." It's pretty solid DRM, and yes it can be worked around, but on the whole it's a very unobtrusive DRM that does it's job without making me feel like a criminal. On top of that I get benefits from it, it's made getting games incredibly easy. I really think Steam has managed to put itself in a great position. It's good DRM and at the same time it's made it so easy to get games that for many people the desire to pirate is greatly reduced. It's winning on both fronts, harder to priate and reducing the desire to do it in the first place.

There's no point in imagining you can "win" the piracy battle. All you can do is what retailers do. Put safeguards in place to reduce it as much as you can, punish the offenders you catch, and for feth's sake don't alienate your paying customers in the process of doing it.

Fans have much more time and don't actually need to be paid.

Uhhh, bwah? They're the production company. They have a script before they ever start production of an episode. Getting it translated is not a big deal. They're already doing Japanese subtitles, all this would be is a separate set of English subtitles. It's not hard and its a hell of a lot cheaper than watching your business on an entire continent go down the crapper.

Kilkrazy wrote:That is the exact problem that animation video imports faced.

Why would a viewer wait a year for a disc of a show when he can watch it subtitled within a week or two of the original broadcast?

Why can't major media publishing companies manage to put out legal subbed shows in a timely manner when a bunch of fans can do it?

The discrepancy between these situations has pretty much gutted the North American anime DVD industry.

There are some very very good signs on the anime front. It seems that the anime studios are significantly more willing to work with netflix and hulu than the big studios. Every week there are 20 more shows added to the streaming services. There's still a ton missing, but it's a very good sign.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Instead of trying to make the material harder to crack and distribute

Steam, widely-considered the best DRM method while also providing many, many services to its users, is actually still easy to crack even though its pretty much the hardest DRM out there.

How much harder can they make it?

a timely manner when a bunch of fans can do it?

Fans have much more time and don't actually need to be paid.

Fans have much less time because they have full time jobs not working for media publishing companies subbing and distributing animes. They do it as a service because the publishers don't.

If publishers want to sell their stuff to people, they are going to have to pay for production to prepare the stuff to sell.

I work in a video production department which does localisation with subtitles of videos to distribute via the internet. Using an argument from authority, I can tell you that it is a fairly cheap and quick process when organised properly.

The big publishers have not been arsed to do so.

They have lost a lot of business as a result.

There's no point in imagining you can "win" the piracy battle. All you can do is what retailers do. Put safeguards in place to reduce it as much as you can, punish the offenders you catch, and for feth's sake don't alienate your paying customers in the process of doing it.

Well, the economy is screwed then.

Da Boss wrote:I don't believe in categorical imperatives, and it's easy to find fringe cases where these things are acceptable, but you know that's not what I was talking about, right?

But there are exceptions, and how about a more general one.

DVD region coding prevents people watching stuff. There are lots of things on Region 1 released in the US that I can't get because they are not released elsewhere. I have no way of seeing these. Some things it's been years. I wanted the Master of the Universe film, it's on Region 2 now, but it was out 5-10 years ago in the US. The Directors cut of the Arnie film Commando hasn't seen a Region 2 release yet has been on Region 1 for years, all we have is the dog-tired old version of the film hacked to bits by censors and with none of the special features.

And then there's a incredibly annoying habit they have of not releasing stuff both sides of the Atlantic at the same time, meaning even if a release is on the books we're waiting months for it to appear - by which time you're spoiled.

They should pull theirs heads out of their asses and give people a fair chance to buy things instead of making downloading the only option. They use the region coding as a means to price control in different countries, that's why our region 2 DVDs are so much more expensive than your region 1 DVDs.

Region locking is pretty much the worst, most anti-consumer concept. It has no real place in a globalized marketplace and I feel like it's going to fade into oblivion in the next 20 years as HD standards start to converge naturally.

Howard A Treesong wrote:DVD region coding prevents people watching stuff. There are lots of things on Region 1 released in the US that I can't get because they are not released elsewhere. I have no way of seeing these.

So? Do you have a right to access any content simply because you want to see/hear/use it? There's no obligation for companies to provide you with product if there's no market for it.

biccat wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:DVD region coding prevents people watching stuff. There are lots of things on Region 1 released in the US that I can't get because they are not released elsewhere. I have no way of seeing these.

So? Do you have a right to access any content simply because you want to see/hear/use it? There's no obligation for companies to provide you with product if there's no market for it.

I don't think he's saying they have a legal obligation, he's complaining that as a customer, his needs are not being met by the producer of the media.

That's a perfectly reasonable thing to be mad about.

Well, the economy is screwed then.

No, the economy will be just fine. Did you not consider the example I gave? Theft is a very real part of doing business in any arena. Shoplifting is rampant and you don't see stores shuttering their doors over it do you? No, because they have figured out how to deal with it as best they can and part of the cost of every item you buy goes towards covering loss from theft. Businesses will survive theft just fine.

The problem with the entertainment industry is that instead of accepting that piracy is going to happen and looking for the best way to combat it without pissing their customers as well as ways to remove the incentive to do it they are just trying to get the government to give them control over the internet. I've put up suggestions on how to combat piracy before in this very thread. Namely, accept that their old method of doing business isn't going to work anymore and look to offer their product in a method people want at a price they are willing to pay for it.

Business isn't screwed, they're just being stupid about it at the moment.

So? Do you have a right to access any content simply because you want to see/hear/use it? There's no obligation for companies to provide you with product if there's no market for it.

I don't even... seriously? That's your argument? Accept that the companies who control this content don't want you to see it, ever, and just walk away? That's your argument? Not that the companies are morons and are ignoring an obvious market? If people are willing to pirate it to get it then there is a market not being served. If they have no intention of releasing content into a market then what do they care if someone in that market pirates it? They had no intention of taking his money anyway.

Rented Tritium wrote:

biccat wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:DVD region coding prevents people watching stuff. There are lots of things on Region 1 released in the US that I can't get because they are not released elsewhere. I have no way of seeing these.

So? Do you have a right to access any content simply because you want to see/hear/use it? There's no obligation for companies to provide you with product if there's no market for it.

I don't think he's saying they have a legal obligation, he's complaining that as a customer, his needs are not being met by the producer of the media.

That's a perfectly reasonable thing to be mad about.

Good point. But people use the "I can't watch X" as an excuse for piracy.

biccat wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:DVD region coding prevents people watching stuff. There are lots of things on Region 1 released in the US that I can't get because they are not released elsewhere. I have no way of seeing these.

So? Do you have a right to access any content simply because you want to see/hear/use it? There's no obligation for companies to provide you with product if there's no market for it.

Not really, they can use the region coding to cut off customers in certain parts of the world if that is their wish. But people, being people, will want those things. They create the very demand that can only be satisfied through illegal sharing, then complain that people fileshare. Rather than doing the obvious, like actually selling it in their area or opening the region coding so you can just buy from abroad, they attack the fans of their own programmes and films.

How about the way that they put "anti-piracy" messages on the front of DVDs that you cannot skip over, thus punishing a person for buying the legit copy by making them endure your BS, while a person getting an illegal copy can just put it in and watch the damn film.

I really don't think they help themselves.

biccat wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

biccat wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:DVD region coding prevents people watching stuff. There are lots of things on Region 1 released in the US that I can't get because they are not released elsewhere. I have no way of seeing these.

So? Do you have a right to access any content simply because you want to see/hear/use it? There's no obligation for companies to provide you with product if there's no market for it.

I don't think he's saying they have a legal obligation, he's complaining that as a customer, his needs are not being met by the producer of the media.

That's a perfectly reasonable thing to be mad about.

Good point. But people use the "I can't watch X" as an excuse for piracy.

Yeah, it's a horrible excuse, but it's a good explanation.

On the microscale, a person who defends their actions that way is being dumb. But on the macroscale, it's a great way to explain an element of WHY this problem is occurring. The studios have inadvertently incentivized it by resisting earlier efforts to more widely distribute the product. Now they're struggling to catch up because the digital distribution train is leaving and the pirates are all on board.

When digital distribution was first happening, it made little short term sense for studios to use it, but in the longterm avoiding it has driven piracy.

Tyyr wrote:

So? Do you have a right to access any content simply because you want to see/hear/use it? There's no obligation for companies to provide you with product if there's no market for it.

I don't even... seriously?

Well, you should. Seriously.

Tyyr wrote:That's your argument? Accept that the companies who control this content don't want you to see it, ever, and just walk away? That's your argument?

Well, yes. It's their content and if they don't want to people in Australia to see it, I have no problem with that.

Tyyr wrote:Not that the companies are morons and are ignoring an obvious market? If people are willing to pirate it to get it then there is a market not being served.

Not necessarily. It means there's a market not being served at a price they demand. If you're not willing to pay what the content provider demands then you aren't entitled to it. Of course, you can always complain about the lack of service, but it's not an excuse for piracy.

Tyyr wrote:If they have no intention of releasing content into a market then what do they care if someone in that market pirates it? They had no intention of taking his money anyway.

Because it's theft. And it distorts the market in the area, making it less likely that later producers will release products in the market in the future.

biccat wrote:Because it's theft. And it distorts the market in the area, making it less likely that later producers will release products in the market in the future.

Well, it's not theft.

The rest of this is true, though. It deflates the equilibrium price by artificially satisfying demand in advance of the release. It's still a problem, but it's not theft, it's piracy.

There's a reason we have different words. They mean different things.

Rented Tritium wrote:Well, it's not theft.

The rest of this is true, though. It deflates the equilibrium price by artificially satisfying demand in advance of the release. It's still a problem, but it's not theft, it's piracy.

There's a reason we have different words. They mean different things.

I'll grant that it's not larceny or robbery, but it is still theft.

Well, yes. It's their content and if they don't want to people in Australia to see it, I have no problem with that.

And if they deny people in Austrailia or any other location access to their content. Things they want to see/play/listen to/read, whatever. Just flat out make it impossible to aquire by any legal means then what's the issue? By denying access to the content the company has essentially told citizens of those areas that they don't want their money. There is no legal means to aquire their product. So again I ask, what's the issue if someone in Austrailia pirates it? There's no lost sale, the company is absolutely NOT selling this content and therefore can't claim they've lost money because they gave citizens of those locations no method to legally buy their product.

Not necessarily. It means there's a market not being served at a price they demand. If you're not willing to pay what the content provider demands then you aren't entitled to it. Of course, you can always complain about the lack of service, but it's not an excuse for piracy.

I don't argue that you are entitled to a product if you aren't willing to pay the price they demand. That's not the situation, they aren't demanding a price at all. They simply aren't selling it period. So it doesn't really make any sense to me to bitch about piracy in this situation since there's no legal method to aquire the product. This is a case of the industry's head being firmly up it's ass. If people aren't willing to buy your product at the price you are demanding the solution isn't to just not sell it to spite them, it's to find out the price they are willing to pay.

Because it's theft. And it distorts the market in the area, making it less likely that later producers will release products in the market in the future.

You can't distort a market that doesn't exist. They aren't selling their product, that's the root cause that's distorting the market. Until the product is sold there they can't bitch about what happens. They are leaving their customers with no other recourse but piracy. You can claim piracy is screwing up the market as soon as you give the customers an actual option to buy the product in the first place.

Adobe appear to be going down a subscription route, which could help to cut piracy. Obviously it won't stop everyone, but it could make the legal option more viable for one man bands.

biccat wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Well, it's not theft.

The rest of this is true, though. It deflates the equilibrium price by artificially satisfying demand in advance of the release. It's still a problem, but it's not theft, it's piracy.

There's a reason we have different words. They mean different things.

I'll grant that it's not larceny or robbery, but it is still theft.

No it's not. Theft has a definition and piracy doesn't meet it. Theft and larceny are synonyms.

I don't understand why it's so important to call it theft. Piracy is bad and wrong. Are you afraid the word piracy isn't wrong enough?

It's basic supply and demand meets human nature. I'm willing to pay for this, so there's a demand. They aren't willing to give it to me, or at least not until they feel like it. In this day and age it's like shagging a tiger and being surprised when it mauls you. Living in australia we get things months, if not years later than you do in north america. When I can legally order it online, have it shipped to me on amazon, and not only am I watching the movie before it comes out in theatres here, but it's actually cheaper, what do you think people are going to do? Hmm? And that's the people who can be bothered.
Why not just go online, download it and enjoy it in the comfort of your own home, without all the hassle? These companies obviously don't want my money. It's human nature to do this. That doesn't make it right, it just makes it predictable and expected. And they act so surprised when it does. I would absolutely LOVE to watch things on tv when they come out. Except I'm hearing all these things about these shows I've never even heard of... so I check it out. And it's good! So now I'm left with a choice. Do I wait 6 months, or a year, or more to see it on TV here (where you're paying more for a basic cable package than you are for the full thing) or do I download it in it's full HDTV glory 2 hours after it's aired in the states?
But having looked into the Megaupload thing a little, I'm not sure which crime is padding out which. And it's going to cause so much damage to the american economy it's not funny. I'm reading all over the place of companies pulling out of their american holdings because it's too risky. If your company can be shut down by the US because they don't like you and you have, what was it, 2 servers in virginia? Why take the risk? And it's not going to do anything. It's a file sharing site. Not a pirate site like so many people say. Difference? They police it the best they can to make sure there's no copyright infringement. They get a report, they pull the file and all files like it. But instead of going after somebody like the Piratebay (hint: look at the name) who's entire site is dedicated to piracy, they go after Megaupload. Rapidshare, Fileserve, and all the others are going to pick up the slack, and in a week no one's going to notice. Except for those poor bastards who paid, and the people who used it legitimately. Which is a fairly decent amount.
Did it get used for piracy? Of course it did. You'd have to be a naive idiot to think otherwise. Was it the primary reason for the site being up? Arguable. I know enough people who paid for their service who think that there's few crimes greater than piracy.
I wonder if I can get paypal to refund me the amount I just paid for a year's subscription? I still had 340 days left

@Tyyr: You and I just disagree on a fundamental issue regarding the legitimacy of copyright control and access. I'm going to leave it there.

Rented Tritium wrote:No it's not. Theft has a definition and piracy doesn't meet it. Theft and larceny are synonyms.

No, they're not. Theft includes, but is not limited to, larceny, robbery, embezzlement, false pretenses, and larceny by trick.

Theft is the taking of the property of another. It is depriving the person of their right to exclusive use of their property. Piracy is theft because it deprives the owner the exclusive control over copying.

Rented Tritium wrote:I don't understand why it's so important to call it theft. Piracy is bad and wrong. Are you afraid the word piracy isn't wrong enough?

I don't know why you're disputing that it is theft.

CoI wrote:I wonder if I can get paypal to refund me the amount I just paid for a year's subscription? I still had 340 days left

Not sure about Australia, but here in the United States you could just dispute the charges with your credit card.

biccat wrote:@Tyyr: You and I just disagree on a fundamental issue regarding the legitimacy of copyright control and access. I'm going to leave it there.

Rented Tritium wrote:No it's not. Theft has a definition and piracy doesn't meet it. Theft and larceny are synonyms.

No, they're not. Theft includes, but is not limited to, larceny, robbery, embezzlement, false pretenses, and larceny by trick.

Theft is the taking of the property of another. It is depriving the person of their right to exclusive use of their property. Piracy is theft because it deprives the owner the exclusive control over copying.

By your logic, 99% of all crimes are "theft" because you can boil them down to something that fits in here.

Murder is theft because it deprives the owner of exclusive control over life.

Meanwhile back over here in the real world, we use this great word "piracy" to describe the crime we're discussing now and we don't feel the need to conflate terms to make something sound worse.

Rented Tritium wrote:I don't understand why it's so important to call it theft. Piracy is bad and wrong. Are you afraid the word piracy isn't wrong enough?

I don't know why you're disputing that it is theft.

Because it isn't theft, it's piracy.

It's a war of words and perception. When you conflate the two, it makes you look intellectually dishonest and it makes it look like you're covering for a lack of credibility on piracy being bad in the first place. Making such a blatantly dishonest argument so frequently does serious damage to the anti-piracy cause. Please stop doing it. The pro-piracy crowd is very strong against anyone who looks like the man, and using doublespeak to turn one crime into a different one makes you look like that.

biccat wrote:
Theft is the taking of the property of another. It is depriving the person of their right to exclusive use of their property. Piracy is theft because it deprives the owner the exclusive control over copying.

It varies by state. For example, in Illinois piracy is not theft because it does not permanently deprive the owner of the ability to use the item in question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:
Meanwhile back over here in the real world, we use this great word "piracy" to describe the crime we're discussing now and we don't feel the need to conflate terms to make something sound worse.

Its complicated, and deals specifically with how theft is defined in a given jurisdiction.

You and I just disagree on a fundamental issue regarding the legitimacy of copyright control and access. I'm going to leave it there.

Not really. I think that people who create content deserve compensation. I think you should be able to control what you create. I also think that the companies that are bitching about piracy right now are clinging to a business model that is dead and instead of changing to meet the times they are doing their level best to wage war on their own customer base. It's idiotic.

I guess if I had a central feeling its that while I completely support the ability of copyright holders to have those copyrights and benefit from their work the way the entertainment industry is pissing in the wind right now makes it hard to feel bad for them. They're taking their work and burning it out of spite rather than finding ways to profit from the way the world has changed.

Dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
Meanwhile back over here in the real world, we use this great word "piracy" to describe the crime we're discussing now and we don't feel the need to conflate terms to make something sound worse.

Its complicated, and deals specifically with how theft is defined in a given jurisdiction.

Rented Tritium wrote:By your logic, 99% of all crimes are "theft" because you can boil them down to something that fits in here.

Hey, it's not my definition, it's the legal community's definition.

Rented Tritium wrote:Murder is theft because it deprives the owner of exclusive control over life.

Nope, life isn't property. Therefore murder isn't theft.

Rented Tritium wrote:Meanwhile back over here in the real world, we use this great word "piracy" to describe the crime we're discussing now and we don't feel the need to conflate terms to make something sound worse.

I don't use the word "theft" to inflate the severity of piracy, I use the word "theft" because it's an accurate term.

Rented Tritium wrote:Because it isn't theft, it's piracy.

It's a war of words and perception. When you conflate the two, it makes you look intellectually dishonest and it makes it look like you're covering for a lack of credibility on piracy being bad in the first place. Making such a blatantly dishonest argument so frequently does serious damage to the anti-piracy cause. Please stop doing it. The pro-piracy crowd is very strong against anyone who looks like the man, and using doublespeak to turn one crime into a different one makes you look like that.

I'm not engaging in "a war of words and perception." I'm describing the actual legal implications of copyright infringement. It really is theft. It's also piracy.

Taking someone's wallet really is larceny. It might also be robbery. It is also theft.

You appear to be using the term piracy because it sounds less severe (although really, the association is much worse, historically speaking) than theft. Are you trying to define down the severity of piracy?

edit:

Rented Tritium wrote:I'll drop this point and move on if you can find me a single jurisdiction on the entire planet that counts piracy as "theft" in a legal sense.

Just for fun, SOPA section 103: "An ‘Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property’ if..."

New York.

dogma wrote:New York.

I think you maybe don't know how to interpret law, because piracy does not fall under that law.

Rented Tritium wrote:
I think you maybe don't know how to interpret law, because piracy does not fall under that law.

Under that law copies of certain pieces of data would be considered individual items of which people are permanently deprived in much the same way that I can be deprived of my copy of a particular book.

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
I think you maybe don't know how to interpret law, because piracy does not fall under that law.

Under that law copies of certain pieces of data would be considered individual items of which people are permanently deprived in much the same way that I can be deprived of my copy of a particular book.

That's simply not what that statute says. I would cite passages to establish this, but since I have no earthly idea how you got that out of this, I'm having trouble with it. Why don't you post the part that you think says that and we'll go from there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:By your logic, 99% of all crimes are "theft" because you can boil them down to something that fits in here.

Hey, it's not my definition, it's the legal community's definition.

No it really isn't. Like, at all. There is a reason we use two different words.

edit:

Rented Tritium wrote:I'll drop this point and move on if you can find me a single jurisdiction on the entire planet that counts piracy as "theft" in a legal sense.

Just for fun, SOPA section 103: "An ‘Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property’ if..."

SOPA isn't law. If it became law, it would be the first time it was defined that way outside of anti-piracy propaganda. Why would SOPA bother saying this if it was already law?

Rented Tritium wrote:
That's simply not what that statute says. I would cite passages to establish this, but since I have no earthly idea how you got that out of this, I'm having trouble with it. Why don't you post the part that you think says that and we'll go from there.

1. A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to
deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to
a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property
from an owner thereof.

1. "Property" means any money, personal property, real property,
computer data, computer program, thing in action, evidence of debt or
contract, or any article, substance or thing of value, including any
gas, steam, water or electricity, which is provided for a charge or
compensation.

2. "Obtain" includes, but is not limited to, the bringing about of a
transfer or purported transfer of property or of a legal interest
therein, whether to the obtainer or another.

Rented Tritium wrote:

biccat wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:By your logic, 99% of all crimes are "theft" because you can boil them down to something that fits in here.

Hey, it's not my definition, it's the legal community's definition.

No it really isn't. Like, at all. There is a reason we use two different words.

Mind if I ask your experience in dealing with IP theft/piracy? In my experience the term "theft" is widely used in the legal intellectual property industry to describe misappropriation of copyright, trade secret, and patent rights.

Admittedly, usually when you're trying to be inflamatory towards opposing counsel. But "piracy" wouldn't be any less inflamatory.

Rented Tritium wrote:
No it really isn't. Like, at all. There is a reason we use two different words.

Yes, but in many places they're considered similar.

This a case in which you can be making one of two arguments:

1: Piracy is not theft.

2: Piracy should not be considered theft.

I suspect you're making argument 2.

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
That's simply not what that statute says. I would cite passages to establish this, but since I have no earthly idea how you got that out of this, I'm having trouble with it. Why don't you post the part that you think says that and we'll go from there.

1. A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to
deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to
a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property
from an owner thereof.

1. "Property" means any money, personal property, real property,
computer data, computer program, thing in action, evidence of debt or
contract, or any article, substance or thing of value, including any
gas, steam, water or electricity, which is provided for a charge or
compensation.

2. "Obtain" includes, but is not limited to, the bringing about of a
transfer or purported transfer of property or of a legal interest
therein, whether to the obtainer or another.

Ah, I see how you got there.

Yeah, so if I take your music files without your permission, I have committed theft. This is because you, being the license holder for the music, have a greater claim over them then I do under the definition of "owner" in that law.

What this means is that if I am on the computers of the music publisher and I take the songs, that's theft. If I'm on the computer of someone who bought a digital copy and I take that, it is theft.

however, that's not actually what happens when people pirate music. When people pirate music, the rights holder freely gives the file to the person who does not have rights to it via a torrenting program. Because it's freely given, even though that person isn't supposed to have it, it's not theft. It doesn't meet the definition here. The crime in piracy is on the part of the person doing the sharing, not the person getting the file (though with torrenting, everyone involved is actually both, that's part of what confuses a lot of judges), where with theft the crime is on the part of the person taking the thing. Since the person doing the downloading from a torrent is doing so with the permission of the person doing the uploading, it is not theft.

Notice that the right to create and distribute copies is not listed under "property" in that statute. That's because the right to create and distribute copies is already protected under copyright infringement statutes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
No it really isn't. Like, at all. There is a reason we use two different words.

Yes, but in many places they're considered similar.

This a case in which you can be making one of two arguments:

1: Piracy is not theft.

2: Piracy should not be considered theft.

I suspect you're making argument 2.

Robbery and burglary are similar in many places, but "robbery is burglary" is still wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

biccat wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:By your logic, 99% of all crimes are "theft" because you can boil them down to something that fits in here.

Hey, it's not my definition, it's the legal community's definition.

No it really isn't. Like, at all. There is a reason we use two different words.

Mind if I ask your experience in dealing with IP theft/piracy? In my experience the term "theft" is widely used in the legal intellectual property industry to describe misappropriation of copyright, trade secret, and patent rights.

Admittedly, usually when you're trying to be inflamatory towards opposing counsel. But "piracy" wouldn't be any less inflamatory.

I don't have direct experience in IP, but I have a lot of experience reading statute because I've been hanging out and working in law enforcement support since I was a little kid. The terms are widely conflated, but it's widely incorrect. The piracy=theft message is a talking point the recording industry came up with a couple decades ago and doesn't have a grounding in law. It's quite effectively used to sway juries, but it's not actually a real thing.

Copyright infringement is what it's going to be called in most places. The reason they avoid "piracy" in law is so it won't be confused with laws against stealing boats on waterways (which are all still on the books and totally awesome to read).

Now, I'll be honest, I wouldn't be shocked if someone found some state where the law was written to be called 'copyright theft' or something similar, but that would be a purely symbolic choice, as the definitions are wildly different. Remember that in one, the person doing the GIVING is the perp and in the other the person doing the TAKING is the perp. That difference alone is HUGE in terms of classification.

You know you're arguing with an IP attorney right RT?

Frazzled wrote:You know you're arguing with an IP attorney right RT?

Which one? Biccat I can see, since he's arguing in a more linguistic context, where Dogma is arguing that laws say things that they really don't say, which is something I don't expect from a real lawyer.

Rented Tritium wrote:
however, that's not actually what happens when people pirate music. When people pirate music, the rights holder freely gives the file to the person who does not have rights to it via a torrenting program. Because it's freely given, even though that person isn't supposed to have it, it's not theft. It doesn't meet the definition here. The crime in piracy is on the part of the person doing the sharing, not the person getting the file (though with torrenting, everyone involved is actually both, that's part of what confuses a lot of judges), where with theft the crime is on the part of the person taking the thing. Since the person doing the downloading from a torrent is doing so with the permission of the person doing the uploading, it is not theft.

That's not correct either. Generally trafficking and the possession of stolen property are classified as theft.

Rented Tritium wrote:
Robbery and burglary are similar in many places, but "robbery is burglary" is still wrong.

Unless the jurisdiction in question considers them the same.

Again, you seem to be making an argument from "ought" not "is".

Rented Tritium wrote:
Which one? Biccat I can see, since he's arguing in a more linguistic context, where Dogma is arguing that laws say things that they really don't say, which is something I don't expect from a real lawyer.

You don't know many lawyers, do you?

But no, I'm not an IP attorney, I'm a political consultant.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You know you're arguing with an IP attorney right RT?

Which one? Biccat I can see, since he's arguing in a more linguistic context, where Dogma is arguing that laws say things that they really don't say, which is something I don't expect from a real lawyer.

Biccat.

where Dogma is arguing that laws say things that they really don't say, which is something I don't expect from a real lawyer.

Are you kidding? That's EXACTLY what I'd expect a lawyer to do.

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
however, that's not actually what happens when people pirate music. When people pirate music, the rights holder freely gives the file to the person who does not have rights to it via a torrenting program. Because it's freely given, even though that person isn't supposed to have it, it's not theft. It doesn't meet the definition here. The crime in piracy is on the part of the person doing the sharing, not the person getting the file (though with torrenting, everyone involved is actually both, that's part of what confuses a lot of judges), where with theft the crime is on the part of the person taking the thing. Since the person doing the downloading from a torrent is doing so with the permission of the person doing the uploading, it is not theft.

That's not correct either. Generally trafficking and the possession of stolen property are classified as theft.

Moving the goalposts. We're talking about the new york law and what you say it says. I don't see anything in that law about trafficking.

Rented Tritium wrote:
Robbery and burglary are similar in many places, but "robbery is burglary" is still wrong.

Unless the jurisdiction in question considers them the same.

And none of them do. Remember I asked for an example showing that they are the same and you brought me a new york statute that doesn't say what you think it says. Now you are trying to change the subject and not argue about new york statutes anymore. Which is it? Demonstrate your thesis, please.

Again, you seem to be making an argument from "ought" not "is".

Well I'm not.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:
Which one? Biccat I can see, since he's arguing in a more linguistic context, where Dogma is arguing that laws say things that they really don't say, which is something I don't expect from a real lawyer.

You don't know many lawyers, do you?

I know about a half dozen lawyers. Now that I see you trying to redirect the discussion though, I'm starting to think maybe it is you. Though you're doing it pretty inexpertly, so maybe not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You know you're arguing with an IP attorney right RT?

Which one? Biccat I can see, since he's arguing in a more linguistic context, where Dogma is arguing that laws say things that they really don't say, which is something I don't expect from a real lawyer.

Biccat.

Yeah. See he's not arguing that the new york larceny statute covers piracy. That's how you can tell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyyr wrote:

where Dogma is arguing that laws say things that they really don't say, which is something I don't expect from a real lawyer.

Are you kidding? That's EXACTLY what I'd expect a lawyer to do.

Except when a real lawyer does it, forums poster rented tritium should not be able to blow holes in the argument.

Rented Tritium wrote:however, that's not actually what happens when people pirate music. When people pirate music, the rights holder freely gives the file to the person who does not have rights to it via a torrenting program.

The "rights holder" isn't involved in the torrent. The rights are held by the copyright owner.

Rented Tritium wrote:The crime in piracy is on the part of the person doing the sharing, not the person getting the file (though with torrenting, everyone involved is actually both, that's part of what confuses a lot of judges), where with theft the crime is on the part of the person taking the thing.

It is infringement "to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords." (note that there are exceptions for computer use that requires copying as part of the software operation)

I'm not aware of any cases where judges had a problem with this. Can you provide some examples?

Rented Tritium wrote:Since the person doing the downloading from a torrent is doing so with the permission of the person doing the uploading, it is not theft.

The violation isn't of the downloader/uploader, it's of the owner of the copyright.

Rented Tritium wrote:Robbery and burglary are similar in many places, but "robbery is burglary" is still wrong.

I'm not aware of anyone who knows the difference between Robbery and Burglary that would conflate the two.

All this talk of pirates makes me want a shot of grog. Who am I kidding, I don't need pirates to want a shot of grog.

Rented Tritium wrote:
Moving the goalposts. We're talking about the new york law and what you say it says. I don't see anything in that law about trafficking.

Theft is a category of offenses under New York law, larceny is a specific kind of theft.

I'm not moving the goalposts (Believe, if I were, it would be much more artful.) so much as explaining to you how to interpret a penal code.

Rented Tritium wrote:
And none of them do. Remember I asked for an example showing that they are the same and you brought me a new york statute that doesn't say what you think it says.

It says exactly what I think it says.

Rented Tritium wrote:
Now you are trying to change the subject and not argue about new york statutes anymore. Which is it? Demonstrate your thesis, please.

I didn't change the subject, you did when you brought up burglary and robbery. Obviously two different things may be considered to be different, that's nice, but it isn't relevant. If the law says two different things are the same, then for the purposes of the law it is true.

Rented Tritium wrote:
Well I'm not.

I honestly don't think you know what you're arguing.

biccat wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:however, that's not actually what happens when people pirate music. When people pirate music, the rights holder freely gives the file to the person who does not have rights to it via a torrenting program.

The "rights holder" isn't involved in the torrent. The rights are held by the copyright owner.

I'm arguing with him about what he says the new york statute means. he's claiming that new york statute counts piracy as theft. That statute counts someone with limited rights as the "owner" for the purposes of theft so long as they have more claim than the person doing the stealing. So if I apply piracy to the law he cited, the person who bought the CD counts as "owner" for that crime.

Rented Tritium wrote:The crime in piracy is on the part of the person doing the sharing, not the person getting the file (though with torrenting, everyone involved is actually both, that's part of what confuses a lot of judges), where with theft the crime is on the part of the person taking the thing.

It is infringement "to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords." (note that there are exceptions for computer use that requires copying as part of the software operation)

I don't disagree with this. But again, I'm arguing about new york statute in the post you quoted, which doesn't talk about those things at all.

I'm not aware of any cases where judges had a problem with this. Can you provide some examples?

Nope. I agree. That should count as infringement. It doesn't really conflict with what I'm saying to dogma.

Rented Tritium wrote:Since the person doing the downloading from a torrent is doing so with the permission of the person doing the uploading, it is not theft.

The violation isn't of the downloader/uploader, it's of the owner of the copyright.

You misunderstand me. I'm saying that in theft, the person who is being charged is the person who took the item, where in copyright infringement, the person who is being charged is the person who distributed the item. The victim is the person stolen directly from in the new york larceny statute and the music studio in the second scenario. No real argument. I guess I wasn't clear enough.

Rented Tritium wrote:Robbery and burglary are similar in many places, but "robbery is burglary" is still wrong.

I'm not aware of anyone who knows the difference between Robbery and Burglary that would conflate the two.

It's an analogy. Dogma said that piracy and theft were similar, so they could be used interchangeably. I used robbery and burglary as an example of the fallacy involved in that logic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
Moving the goalposts. We're talking about the new york law and what you say it says. I don't see anything in that law about trafficking.

Theft is a category of offenses under New York law, larceny is a specific kind of theft.

I'm not moving the goalposts (Believe, if I were, it would be much more artful.) so much as explaining to you how to interpret a penal code.

If you think the statute you posted counts torrenting as larceny, believe me, you don't know how to interpret penal code.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let's all argue about the same thing. Biccat, does this statute

http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article155.htm

Count torrenting as larceny?

Rented Tritium wrote:
It's an analogy. Dogma said that piracy and theft were similar, so they could be used interchangeably. I used robbery and burglary as an example of the fallacy involved in that logic.

Another example of an argument from "ought".

I said that piracy and larceny are considered to be similar in certain jurisdictions, not that they should be.

You're confusing what can be made true by statute, and what is true, or should be true, by argument.

Rented Tritium wrote:
If you think the statute you posted counts torrenting as larceny, believe me, you don't know how to interpret penal code.

That isn't what I said. Though the argument could be made as no one involved in torrenting an unauthorized file is the rights holder, as biccat noted.

dogma wrote:
That isn't what I said. Though the argument could be made as no one involved in torrenting an unauthorized file is the rights holder, as biccat noted.

In the new york statute, a thief that steals an already stolen item has still committed larceny. It's all about who has slightly more right to something and the law counts the first thief as having a tiny bit more legitimacy. So that argument would not go anywhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dogma, I said I would drop this if you could find me one jurisdiction that counted piracy as theft and you gave me that statute. I can only assume you meant that statute counted piracy as theft.

What else could you possibly have been saying by posting that? Are you just backpedaling now?

Rented Tritium wrote:Let's all argue about the same thing. Biccat, does this statute

http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article155.htm

Count torrenting as larceny?

I don't think so. The statute seems to be limited to "things" (a chose) and doesn't address intellectual property.

But I'll note that the statute also doesn't define "theft," nor equate it with larceny.

Rented Tritium wrote:
In the new york statute, a thief that steals an already stolen item has still committed larceny.

No, that's not necessarily correct.

Rented Tritium wrote:
It's all about who has slightly more right to something and the law counts the first thief as having a tiny bit more legitimacy. So that argument would not go anywhere.

That's not true either. The first thief has no more legitimacy, and I honestly don't know why you're bringing that in. The first thief is guilty of larceny, the second thief might be guilty of larceny if the jurisdiction considers stolen goods as property, which is unlikely.

Property in the legal sphere is not the same property in the colloquial sense.

Rented Tritium wrote:
Dogma, I said I would drop this if you could find me one jurisdiction that counted piracy as theft and you gave me that statute. I can only assume you meant that statute counted piracy as theft.

Ah, so you wanted a statute that said "Piracy is theft." I see your problem, and I'm guessing it is, as I've said, based on the idea that you don't want piracy to be considered theft.

Rented Tritium wrote:
What else could you possibly have been saying by posting that? Are you just backpedaling now?

I'm mostly trying to figure out why you are struggling with this concept.

biccat wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Let's all argue about the same thing. Biccat, does this statute

http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article155.htm

Count torrenting as larceny?

I don't think so. The statute seems to be limited to "things" (a chose) and doesn't address intellectual property.

But I'll note that the statute also doesn't define "theft," nor equate it with larceny.

Yeah, but for the sake of arguing in good faith, I'm comfortable letting him count larceny as "theft" since they're way more synonymous than piracy/theft.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
In the new york statute, a thief that steals an already stolen item has still committed larceny.

No, that's not necessarily correct.

Did you read the whole thing? The definition of "owner" pretty clearly covers someone who stole an item previously. There's no argument to be had there.

Rented Tritium wrote:
It's all about who has slightly more right to something and the law counts the first thief as having a tiny bit more legitimacy. So that argument would not go anywhere.

That's not true either. The first thief has no more legitimacy, and I honestly don't know why you're bringing that in. The first thief is guilty of larceny, the second thief might be guilty of larceny if the jurisdiction considers stolen goods as property, which is unlikely.

Property in the legal sphere is not the same property in the colloquial sense.

You're definitely not helping your "piracy=theft" argument by saying this, I hope you realize. And yes, almost every jurisdiction counts stolen property as property for the purposes of theft. If you steal stolen goods from a thief, it is still theft. Why would anyone write a law otherwise?

Rented Tritium wrote:
Dogma, I said I would drop this if you could find me one jurisdiction that counted piracy as theft and you gave me that statute. I can only assume you meant that statute counted piracy as theft.

Ah, so you wanted a statute that said "Piracy is theft."

Yeah, I pretty explicitly asked for a jurisdiction that counted piracy as theft. How did you think I was asking for anything else?

I see your problem, and I'm guessing it is, as I've said, based on the idea that you don't want piracy to be considered theft.

aaaand again, you ascribe positions to me that I never expressed. Weak strawman.

Rented Tritium wrote:
What else could you possibly have been saying by posting that? Are you just backpedaling now?

I'm mostly trying to figure out why you are struggling with this concept.

And I'm trying to figure out why you're struggling with it.