Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ShumaGorath wrote:

FWIW, I agree with you - copyright law has it's basis in print media, and I think we can all recognise the inadequacies of using that law to defend IP in the digital realm. It just happens to be my opinion that, even though that might be the case, it doesn't give people the right to trample on the rights of the creator, the desire to do which seems to be largely the basis of this furore. It leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

Most artists I know view modern times as a great renaissance of creative capability, both because the tools have made being creative easier and because modern society makes it vastly easier to spread their work. I've yet to hear anyone that wasn't already set for life complain that their works are trampled upon.

Really? Perhaps that's just the circles that you move in. I've certainly spoken to a lot of people who say that exact thing. I've spoken to people who say the opposite. The fact is, it's both easier and more difficult to have a career as a musician now. Sure, you can use the internet to gain a lot of exposure, but money still makes the industry go round, and it's monetising your music that is the hard part. Have you ever tried to do it? It's not as easy as you make it sound. People expect everything for free. One of the only ways an emerging artist can make money in the initial phases of their career is to play live, and that is impossible to do with any effectiveness without an injection of hard cash - touring is expensive. Not everyone is as lucky as we have been thus far, and the only hope they have for a large cash injection is some sort of recording or publishing deal, which are harder and harder to get. And we know why that is, don't we? Because records don't sell, and if records don't sell, labels, large and small, will not venture money on breaking an artist. Hell, even if you do use the internet to gain a large amount of exposure, it's really only a way of attracting a label, so the web doesn't divorce big business from the process.

I don't think that that is a particularly compelling argument, for reasons that should be obvious.

Then state those reasons. As it is all I'm hearing is that you don't like change and that you're willing to defend archaic and utterly dysfunctional IP laws in liu of regressing to a society where artistic creativity can't be easily owned by major corporations.

You're hearing that because you want to hear it, and you want to hear it because you like to get mad. You like to get mad because you think it cows people, but it doesn't cow me. To me, you're just a hyperactive kid with an over-inflated opinion of yourself.
You basically just stated that copyright is a bad concept because it hasn't existed for a very long period within the wider context of human history. That is an appalling argument, one which can be used to justify all sorts of indefensible things. There are reasons that copyright is a bad idea, but the fact that we haven't always had it isn't really one of them

Once again, depending on the circumstances, Fair Use would be the most likely defence.

Enjoy running out of money before the court comes to that decision.

There are cases which have been won by private individuals against companies, in which Fair Use has been the successful defence.

And yet YOU are siding with THEM! Do you honestly think that youtube and Google give a gak about you and your freedoms? They care about their bottom line, and this endangers it, because copyright infringement plays a significant role in their businesses. Perhaps it shouldn't. Perhaps they should be honest.

I'll side with the company whose motto is 'do no evil'...

'Strength Through Joy'

'Work Makes Free'

Yeah, mottos are meaningless.

Exactly. It's discretionary. The copyright holder has the choice not to protect his/her IP, or to protect it to a degree of their choosing. That's the whole point. This bill gives IP creators greater discretionary powers. Yes, you could argue that this a case of 'sledgehammer-to-swat-a-fly', and I might be inclined to agree. It's harsh, no question. However, the opening of this century has been marked by a complete disregard for the intellectual property of others - people's rights have been trampled on.

It's discretionary and it empowers the most unscrupulous characters in entertainment (an industry with no scruples) to do whatever they can to quash the freedoms of competitors. I have respect for content creators, content providers that provide a good service aren't evil in my eyes other. Many of the industries advocating these bills don't have a role any more and act like tyrants in their quest to stay afloat. The internet and low cost content production technologies replaced them almost wholesale and they know it. To threaten powerful emerging industries to protect old ones is worse then any bank bailout, it's pure corruption clothed in the crusade of 'law'. That you can pretend that corporations willing to sue 90 year old women and 13 year old children won't do anything in their power to feth with every person they can is striking. It's not a world I want to live in, it's one I'd prefer to give the bird.

...and I have no desire to live in a world where some basement-dweller gets to decide that my property is now his to do what he likes with in the name of 'progress'. It's not his, it's mine, and it's not progress, it's simply not wanting to pay for something that you want. Be honest, you don't care about any of this, you just want to get free stuff, don't you? And you're mad because this could hamper that, aren't you? Doesn't that make you feel cheap?

Hey albatross, I explained what's bad about this bill in your terms, did you see it?

Rented Tritium wrote:Hey albatross, I explained what's bad about this bill in your terms, did you see it?

I've read the bill (I downloaded it! ). I'm not arguing that it's a good bill. I'm arguing against the idea that copyright/IP should not be defended, because it absolutely should. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

Albatross wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Hey albatross, I explained what's bad about this bill in your terms, did you see it?

I've read the bill (I downloaded it! ). I'm not arguing that it's a good bill. I'm arguing against the idea that copyright/IP should not be defended, because it absolutely should. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

Oh well carry on then. Copyright protection is important.

Albatross wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Hey albatross, I explained what's bad about this bill in your terms, did you see it?

I've read the bill (I downloaded it! ). I'm not arguing that it's a good bill. I'm arguing against the idea that copyright/IP should not be defended, because it absolutely should. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

It wasn't.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Hey albatross, I explained what's bad about this bill in your terms, did you see it?

I've read the bill (I downloaded it! ). I'm not arguing that it's a good bill. I'm arguing against the idea that copyright/IP should not be defended, because it absolutely should. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

Oh well carry on then. Copyright protection is important.

Yup. I see no reason to take advantage of someone, simply because it's been made easier. That argument, frankly, disgusts me. Once again, it's a harsh bill. I've already said that. However, I think it's a product of the climate - IP protection is next to irrelevant in some countries which are consumers of American IP. Look at China, in the year before last (iirc) just $19m worth of CDs were sold in China, roughly around the same as in Hungary for the same period. That's money being drained from your economy. I mean, when 19 out of 20 tracks being downloaded are illegal, that's a serious problem.

Yeah I'm not actually seeing where people are saying that copyright and IP shouldn't be protected here.

Albatross wrote:
Yup. I see no reason to take advantage of someone, simply because it's been made easier. That argument, frankly, disgusts me. Once again, it's a harsh bill. I've already said that. However, I think it's a product of the climate - IP protection is next to irrelevant in some countries which are consumers of American IP. Look at China, in the year before last (iirc) just $19m worth of CDs were sold in China, roughly around the same as in Hungary for the same period. That's money being drained from your economy. I mean, when 19 out of 20 tracks being downloaded are illegal, that's a serious problem.

I'm not defending piracy here, but that's a fallacy. Not every download is a 'lost sale'.

I have a friend who is an anime-head, big time. He's got a lot of legally bought anime and manga. He has a lot more downloaded. Why? It doesn't exist here. He can't buy it. He would have to buy the region locked DVD (an anti-piracy measure) from Japan, a Japanese DVD player, and (at least, back in the day) a PAL TV, because we used to use NTSC here.

So he 'steals' it, because he can't buy it.

daedalus wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Hey albatross, I explained what's bad about this bill in your terms, did you see it?

I've read the bill (I downloaded it! ). I'm not arguing that it's a good bill. I'm arguing against the idea that copyright/IP should not be defended, because it absolutely should. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

It wasn't.

I think that in your case it was the fact that I was disrupting the ambience in the echo-chamber that led you to believe I thought that it was a good bill. You were mad and wanted someone to attack, I get that. However, I'm pretty sure I never said that it was a good bill. I said that it was harsh, but that I could understand why, a few times. Oh, and that I was happy that the party's over. That's more about my lack of sympathy for pirates than my approval of this bill.

daedalus wrote: (A) He would have to buy the region locked DVD (an anti-piracy measure) from Japan, a Japanese DVD player, and (at least, back in the day) a PAL TV, because we used to use NTSC here.

(B) So he 'steals' it, because he can't buy it.

But you're (A) says there is a means to buy it.

daedalus wrote:

Albatross wrote:
Yup. I see no reason to take advantage of someone, simply because it's been made easier. That argument, frankly, disgusts me. Once again, it's a harsh bill. I've already said that. However, I think it's a product of the climate - IP protection is next to irrelevant in some countries which are consumers of American IP. Look at China, in the year before last (iirc) just $19m worth of CDs were sold in China, roughly around the same as in Hungary for the same period. That's money being drained from your economy. I mean, when 19 out of 20 tracks being downloaded are illegal, that's a serious problem.

I'm not defending piracy here, but that's a fallacy. Not every download is a 'lost sale'.

Perhaps not, but are you saying that it doesn't impact sales?

kronk wrote:

daedalus wrote: (A) He would have to buy the region locked DVD (an anti-piracy measure) from Japan, a Japanese DVD player, and (at least, back in the day) a PAL TV, because we used to use NTSC here.

(B) So he 'steals' it, because he can't buy it.

But you're (A) says there is a means to buy it.

I guess that's fair. So then does he actually need to have the separate DVD player and the TV mail ordered from Japan, or can he just buy the DVD (assuming he can find somewhere that will ship it to the US) and tack it up on the wall while watching his downloaded copy?

I'm not really an audio/video guy and could give two feths about his manga fetish.

Albatross wrote:

daedalus wrote:
I'm not defending piracy here, but that's a fallacy. Not every download is a 'lost sale'.

Perhaps not, but are you saying that it doesn't impact sales?

Not at all. I'm sure it does. I never said it had to be 100% one way or the other. I'm just saying it's something that has to be kept in mind when trying to give hard numbers.

kronk wrote:

daedalus wrote: (A) He would have to buy the region locked DVD (an anti-piracy measure) from Japan, a Japanese DVD player, and (at least, back in the day) a PAL TV, because we used to use NTSC here.

(B) So he 'steals' it, because he can't buy it.

But you're (A) says there is a means to buy it.

Worse than that. Japan uses NTSC, not PAL, so he actually JUST needed a region free dvd player, which is pretty easy to get. You can even hack a PS2 into doing it or use a PC if you're good.

You can even just buy the disc legit, then rip it and convert the ISO and reburn it. Nobody will consider that piracy since you have the real thing.

mattyrm wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Let's try this again. If I wasn't going to purchase something in the first place, and I watch/listen to it, what harm is being done to who? My life benefits slightly, but that's it. No harm is being done here, and other people might legitimately buy it if I refer them to it.

But on a serious note, how can you (and Shuma) not see my point?

Im not saying that I disagree with every point you make, I wouldnt buy "Weapons of ass destruction" on DVD for ten bucks but I would DL it for free. I agree with you. Sure the system needs a tweak when the artists get feth all and the big wig producers get all the cash, I agree with you there too. There are many points I can agree on, but to me its still simple.

I really really don't see how anyone can't see the obvious point that If you slave away on a product, just because we now have technology its alright for everyone who wants a copy of it to get it for free? Its ok for shuma to say he would "party like a rock star" because he is a relative nobody and would love to see something he wrote go viral and have a million people read, but if you were a semi famous writer, why should your latest work that you slved over go to everyone for free?

Is that not glaringly obvious? Just because we aren't famous writers and singers doesn't mean we cant see their fething point surely?

I guess I just don't have any sympathy for someone I'll never meet who is losing nothing by me gaining enjoyment from something they produced which I otherwise never would have experienced. Hell, I've emailed/commented a few bands or talked to a few artists I had downloaded face to face and they seem to appreciate when I compliment their work. Would have been hard to do otherwise. On top of that, how many big artists at concerts make some joke about people downloading their music and laugh it off?

kronk wrote:I'm not really an audio/video guy and could give two feths about his manga fetish.

But it's important to the discussion. If I have a copy of something, but for whatever technological reason, it's in a format I can't use, is it still wrong for me to download a 'better' (as in usable) copy?

I can list non-manga examples that apply to me personally, if you would like:

I have a couple old Sony CDs that have their infamous rootkit on them. For technical reasons, I can't make mp3s out of it. Can I download the music?

I also possess a legal copy of The Witcher. It's DRM scheme (for piracy measures) does not function on Windows 7. The only fix I've been able to find is a pirated version, which has the DRM scheme removed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:
Worse than that. Japan uses NTSC, not PAL, so he actually JUST needed a region free dvd player, which is pretty easy to get. You can even hack a PS2 into doing it or use a PC if you're good.

You can even just buy the disc legit, then rip it and convert the ISO and reburn it. Nobody will consider that piracy since you have the real thing.

Eh, well, there you go. Like I said, wasn't me. I assumed he knew what he was talking about.

daedalus wrote:I have a couple old Sony CDs that have their infamous rootkit on them. For technical reasons, I can't make mp3s out of it. Can I download the music?

I also possess a legal copy of The Witcher. It's DRM scheme (for piracy measures) does not function on Windows 7. The only fix I've been able to find is a pirated version, which has the DRM scheme removed.

The problem isn't downloading, which is legal in those cases. The problem is sharing. You CANNOT torrent those without some of your bits going to other users. If those users didn't have their own copies, then you just distributed a pirated copy.

If you had a way to download it WITHOUT also giving it to someone else, as in a non-p2p connection for a straight 1 way download, then it would be legal and fine for you to do so.

In that case, I have little else to say.

I think it would be really awesome if Amazon or itunes had a program where you could send in crappy DRM'd copies like that and they could credit you for digital download. They'd get a TON of consumer goodwill out of a move like that.

Rented Tritium wrote:
You can even just buy the disc legit, then rip it and convert the ISO and reburn it. Nobody will consider that piracy since you have the real thing.

Look at bill C32 in Canada. It would essentially make it illegal to rip a DvD or music CD, among other things.

So yes, there are people that want to take it to such extremes, which is why current copyright law is such garbage.

Fafnir wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
You can even just buy the disc legit, then rip it and convert the ISO and reburn it. Nobody will consider that piracy since you have the real thing.

Look at bill C32 in Canada. It would essentially make it illegal to rip a DvD or music CD, among other things.

So yes, there are people that want to take it to such extremes, which is why current copyright law is such garbage.

What?

That doesn't make sense.

CURRENT copyright law is garbage because PROPOSED CHANGES TO IT suck?

No dude.

Really? Perhaps that's just the circles that you move in. I've certainly spoken to a lot of people who say that exact thing. I've spoken to people who say the opposite. The fact is, it's both easier and more difficult to have a career as a musician now. Sure, you can use the internet to gain a lot of exposure, but money still makes the industry go round, and it's monetising your music that is the hard part. Have you ever tried to do it? It's not as easy as you make it sound. People expect everything for free. One of the only ways an emerging artist can make money in the initial phases of their career is to play live, and that is impossible to do with any effectiveness without an injection of hard cash - touring is expensive. Not everyone is as lucky as we have been thus far, and the only hope they have for a large cash injection is some sort of recording or publishing deal, which are harder and harder to get. And we know why that is, don't we? Because records don't sell, and if records don't sell, labels, large and small, will not venture money on breaking an artist. Hell, even if you do use the internet to gain a large amount of exposure, it's really only a way of attracting a label, so the web doesn't divorce big business from the process.

Then they should tour locally. Do more bars. I know members of five different unlicensed bands, most have other jobs, one travels to gigs. Stop blaming piracy because recording contracts are being outmoded by cheap microphones and Logic. The reason the starving musician exists isn't because of piracy, it's because being in a band is a bad way to make money and always has been. If you're friends can't monetize their music now, when the costs of recording have hit a floor, then they wouldn't have managed it before when you had to take a loan to get a rig or rent some studio space. At least if they're good enough now they get to keep their integrity instead of being ghost written and having their music censored.

You're hearing that because you want to hear it, and you want to hear it because you like to get mad. You like to get mad because you think it cows people, but it doesn't cow me. To me, you're just a hyperactive kid with an over-inflated opinion of yourself.

And a gyro.

You basically just stated that copyright is a bad concept because it hasn't existed for a very long period within the wider context of human history.

No I stated that copyright infringement isn't theft for that reason. That includes the vast majority of time that we've had copy protection.

That is an appalling argument, one which can be used to justify all sorts of indefensible things. There are reasons that copyright is a bad idea, but the fact that we haven't always had it isn't really one of them

It's an appalling argument when you intentionally misread it. I agree.

There are cases which have been won by private individuals against companies, in which Fair Use has been the successful defence.

And there are just as many cases where a small business or defendant had to cow tow or went out of business because they didn't have the money to continue. Whats your point? That those situations are acceptable to you?

'Strength Through Joy'

'Work Makes Free'

Yeah, mottos are meaningless.

And yet their actions agree with their motto so far. Either way I've picked a side that's taken legitimate strides towards reshaping human society in a way that I aprove of vs one that didn't. Get over it.

...and I have no desire to live in a world where some basement-dweller gets to decide that my property is now his to do what he likes with in the name of 'progress'.

You already live there and this bill doesn't do gak to stop it. Get over it.

It's not his, it's mine, and it's not progress, it's simply not wanting to pay for something that you want. Be honest, you don't care about any of this, you just want to get free stuff, don't you? And you're mad because this could hamper that, aren't you? Doesn't that make you feel cheap?

As the person here who actually does the content you seem to want to protect I find it odd that you want to constantly mislabel my arguments and represent me as an irresponsible and slovenly teen who just wants free gak. Guess what? I'll still get free gak after these laws. They won't stop it, you won't stop it. These laws are virtually unenforceable and incredibly innefective. These laws are irrelevant insofar as they do nothing to me except pretend to protect the things that I make on a daily basis.

Except they don't.

They just feth up the Internets business model for legitimate content providers and legitimate artists doing parody or referential works. They're a threat to privacy and free speech and they will be misused by an industry that has proven its willingness to stoop low.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
You can even just buy the disc legit, then rip it and convert the ISO and reburn it. Nobody will consider that piracy since you have the real thing.

Look at bill C32 in Canada. It would essentially make it illegal to rip a DvD or music CD, among other things.

So yes, there are people that want to take it to such extremes, which is why current copyright law is such garbage.

What?

That doesn't make sense.

CURRENT copyright law is garbage because PROPOSED CHANGES TO IT suck?

No dude.

Current copyright law is garbage because it's in desperate need of change, because it fails to address any of the issues that are relevant to the internet age in a way that's effective, meaningful, and fair. And the fact that laws like that are even being considered is proof that the people in charge have no clue what they're dealing with and are being lobbied by the people who shouldn't have nearly as much control as is being proposed.

Fafnir wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
You can even just buy the disc legit, then rip it and convert the ISO and reburn it. Nobody will consider that piracy since you have the real thing.

Look at bill C32 in Canada. It would essentially make it illegal to rip a DvD or music CD, among other things.

So yes, there are people that want to take it to such extremes, which is why current copyright law is such garbage.

What?

That doesn't make sense.

CURRENT copyright law is garbage because PROPOSED CHANGES TO IT suck?

No dude.

Current copyright law is garbage because it's in desperate need of change, because it fails to address any of the issues that are relevant to the internet age in a way that's effective, meaningful, and fair. And the fact that laws like that are even being considered is proof that the people in charge have no clue what they're dealing with and are being lobbied by the people who shouldn't have nearly as much control as is being proposed.

Huge stretch, dude. If this law PASSES then people in charge have no clue.

You should never be against the very CONSIDERATION of an idea.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Then they should tour locally. Do more bars. I know members of five different unlicensed bands, most have other jobs, one travels to gigs. Stop blaming piracy because recording contracts are being outmoded by cheap microphones and Logic. The reason the starving musician exists isn't because of piracy, it's because being in a band is a bad way to make money and always has been. If you're friends can't monetize their music now, when the costs of recording have hit a floor, then they wouldn't have managed it before when you had to take a loan to get a rig or rent some studio space. At least if they're good enough now they get to keep their integrity instead of being ghost written and having their music censored.

And I wanted to divorce myself from this thread as I said my piece, but I want to leave this here:

http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/

And this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/03/peter_jenner/

Just a couple interesting pieces of the "Music Business Model."

Rented Tritium wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
You can even just buy the disc legit, then rip it and convert the ISO and reburn it. Nobody will consider that piracy since you have the real thing.

Look at bill C32 in Canada. It would essentially make it illegal to rip a DvD or music CD, among other things.

So yes, there are people that want to take it to such extremes, which is why current copyright law is such garbage.

What?

That doesn't make sense.

CURRENT copyright law is garbage because PROPOSED CHANGES TO IT suck?

No dude.

Current copyright law is garbage because it's in desperate need of change, because it fails to address any of the issues that are relevant to the internet age in a way that's effective, meaningful, and fair. And the fact that laws like that are even being considered is proof that the people in charge have no clue what they're dealing with and are being lobbied by the people who shouldn't have nearly as much control as is being proposed.

Huge stretch, dude. If this law PASSES then people in charge have no clue.

You should never be against the very CONSIDERATION of an idea.

I'm against the consideration of the idea because the idea itself is bs.

daedalus wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Then they should tour locally. Do more bars. I know members of five different unlicensed bands, most have other jobs, one travels to gigs. Stop blaming piracy because recording contracts are being outmoded by cheap microphones and Logic. The reason the starving musician exists isn't because of piracy, it's because being in a band is a bad way to make money and always has been. If you're friends can't monetize their music now, when the costs of recording have hit a floor, then they wouldn't have managed it before when you had to take a loan to get a rig or rent some studio space. At least if they're good enough now they get to keep their integrity instead of being ghost written and having their music censored.

And I wanted to divorce myself from this thread as I said my piece, but I want to leave this here:

http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/

And this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/03/peter_jenner/

Just a couple interesting pieces of the "Music Business Model."

Courtney love isn't as much of a shill as I thought.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Courtney love isn't as much of a shill as I thought.

God, I know, right? I have no love for her music, but that impressed me.

Fafnir wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
You can even just buy the disc legit, then rip it and convert the ISO and reburn it. Nobody will consider that piracy since you have the real thing.

Look at bill C32 in Canada. It would essentially make it illegal to rip a DvD or music CD, among other things.

So yes, there are people that want to take it to such extremes, which is why current copyright law is such garbage.

What?

That doesn't make sense.

CURRENT copyright law is garbage because PROPOSED CHANGES TO IT suck?

No dude.

Current copyright law is garbage because it's in desperate need of change, because it fails to address any of the issues that are relevant to the internet age in a way that's effective, meaningful, and fair. And the fact that laws like that are even being considered is proof that the people in charge have no clue what they're dealing with and are being lobbied by the people who shouldn't have nearly as much control as is being proposed.

Huge stretch, dude. If this law PASSES then people in charge have no clue.

You should never be against the very CONSIDERATION of an idea.

I'm against the consideration of the idea because the idea itself is bs.

And how is it that one decides that an idea is bs without considering it?