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.

biccat wrote:

Canadian 5th wrote:So while you can sell your cheap bootlegs, just as you could sell cheap CD's or VHS's the artist and label will still get the vast majority of the profits from sources you can't have.

I don't think you understand. These aren't "cheap bootlegs," they're similar quality to anything that is available today, from anyone. Remember, copyright is gone.

I'll also reproduce video games. And movies. So while the studio might make a movie for $10 million and has to sell 1 million DVD's at $15 each, I'll sell the same at $5 each, almost all profit.

With video games we're already seeing a trend towards requiring the user connect to a dedicated server or lose a portion of or the entirety of a pirated game's functionality. You also don't tend to see games like WoW pirated for this very reason so it's pretty easy to adapt to.

As for movies the company still get the theater rights and will have the drop on initial DVD/Blueray/Online sales where the vast majority of the money is made.

Why should I care about studies about piracy? Those things have zero impact on my job, one way or the other.

Seems like as an IP lawyer knowing something about studies related to piracy would be a useful thing given how closely the two areas are related.

Just over the US armed forces or CIA. I'm not talking about censoring the internet, I'm talking about going against copyright infringement.

I could also do it through the courts if I had a favorable prosecutor (not doing anything illegal, simply for issuing subpoenas and signing off on warrants). And, again, enough money. Lawsuits aren't cheap.

Send all the warrents, subpoenas, and the like as you want. Unless the person is caught in a country that cares and has favorable extradition laws you've accomplished nothing for all the effort.

Well, first you're wrong about SOPA/PIPA, but if you really want to have that debate, either start a new thread or send me a PM.

Sorry, you're frankly wrong given how easy it is to cache IP's as they only take down DNS names. You could also run your own DNS server, such an act would also prompt other nations to start building up their own DNS servers so as to not be at the mercy of a crazy US gov't. But please, share your thoughts on the issue.

Second, only people who have already made the investment in backing up TPB are going to be able to continue to use its services. At the very least, it would cut down on piracy. Which is the ultimate goal.

Until they host that info on another website and then you're stuck play whack a mole to keep the data down because you can no longer eliminate it. That's just a massive waste of money that gets very little done. It would be worse cost to effect wise than the war on drugs and we all know how well that one's going...

Canadian 5th wrote:As for movies the company still get the theater rights and will have the drop on initial DVD/Blueray/Online sales where the vast majority of the money is made.

The counter to copyright laws then is contract law? Seems unnecessary, although profitable for contract lawyers.

Canadian 5th wrote:

Why should I care about studies about piracy? Those things have zero impact on my job, one way or the other.

Seems like as an IP lawyer knowing something about studies related to piracy would be a useful thing given how closely the two areas are related.

And you would be wrong.

Canadian 5th wrote:Sorry, you're frankly wrong given how easy it is to cache IP's as they only take down DNS names. You could also run your own DNS server, such an act would also prompt other nations to start building up their own DNS servers so as to not be at the mercy of a crazy US gov't. But please, share your thoughts on the issue.

Actually I misread your post. I thought you said it was easy to get a site blocked by SOPA/PIPA. My apologies.

Yeah, you're right that it would be easy to still pirate even in the age of SOPA/PIPA. It just wouldn't be possible to make money with it. If you want to host a pirating website and pay thousands of dollars a month for bandwidth and hosting services (all outside of the US, unless you want to risk getting shut down by DMCA), then you could easily circumvent SOPA/PIPA. Well, SOPA at least. PIPA is a terrible law.

Canadian 5th wrote:Until they host that info on another website and then you're stuck play whack a mole to keep the data down because you can no longer eliminate it. That's just a massive waste of money that gets very little done. It would be worse cost to effect wise than the war on drugs and we all know how well that one's going...

Which is why I need dictatorial powers, or a client with deep pockets.

I never said it would be cheap, or easy for that matter.

biccat wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Go ask Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails.

Not coincidentally, these two bands also kick butt on stage. You know, how bands used to get paid.

Both of those albums were released well into their NIN and Radiohead's careers, after they had made a good living on their first 6 albums (or thereabouts).

Then you've missed the point. I posted these examples because the bands still made a lot of money on these albums, irrespective of whether or not they were already established.

biccat wrote:Yes, I'm an IP lawyer, but I don't really think you've thought this through.

Imagine there's no IP protection. Once Company A releases an album I would copy the CD and cover art, repackage the whole thing, and it at a lower price than Company A. I would use a professional-level CD copier and printer. There would be almost no discernable difference between the original and my copy. The key difference would be that I don't have to pay the performer anything, so my copy could sell for a few dollars less. Repeat for movies, books, and any other media that you like.

I'm not saying that copyright laws should be eliminated; I'm merely pointing out that the reliance on draconian copyright laws is not a proper business model. And the point you are trying to make is rhetoric at best. History has shown that people will purchase albums legitimately if they feel the album is worth its price. The argument you are trying to make seems to be that IP law is the only thing that prevents people from choosing knockoff CDs; but this is akin to saying that punitive deterrence is the only thing that prevents me from walking down the street with a boxing glove and punching people in the groin. The fact of the matter is that most people won't do this, not out of fear of the penal system, but simply because they don't intend to be cockpunchers, and most people won't choose piracy not because of any IP laws, but because they wish to support the artists that they deem worthy of their support.

biccat wrote:The purpose of copyright law isn't to stop individual users, it's to stop large competitors.

And yet the RIAA continuously engages in abusive lawsuits against individual users. Again and again and again.

biccat wrote:Give me dictator-like powers and I'll shut down TPB. Heck, just give me a wealthy enough client who is willing to do whatever it takes and I'll shut them down.

I do enjoy civilized debates as I truly appreciate the adversarial process, but can we please skip the chest-thumping? Otherwise, I can just counter with "1kg caustic soda at 50% dilution per 30 lbs", and then I can seem tough and scary, too, butI'd rather not post silly things like that.

azazel the cat wrote:Then you've missed the point. I posted these examples because the bands still made a lot of money on these albums, irrespective of whether or not they were already established.

But they had a fallback position if they didn't make money on the albums, that's my point. It's easy to risk a million dollars when you have ten.

azazel the cat wrote:The argument you are trying to make seems to be that IP law is the only thing that prevents people from choosing knockoff CDs

Most of the deterrant against people purchasing knockoff CD's isn't that they're knockoffs, it's that they're usually poor quality and illegal (which has more of a psychological than real effect). But if I put a high quality knockoff next to a legitimate copy with the only difference being in price, most people will choose the knockoff.

azazel the cat wrote:I do enjoy civilized debates as I truly appreciate the adversarial process, but can we please skip the chest-thumping? Otherwise, I can just counter with "1kg caustic soda at 50% dilution per 30 lbs", and then I can seem tough and scary, too, butI'd rather not post silly things like that.

Half chest thumping, half pointing out that there are ways to take down TPB through legitimate (if inefficient) means. Especially without the parade of horribles that we're promised if there is ever any punitive action taken against anyone on the internet.

Sorry for the poor wording, I was trying to make the narrower point, but I see now that the "chest thumping" really does dominate.

biccat wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Then you've missed the point. I posted these examples because the bands still made a lot of money on these albums, irrespective of whether or not they were already established.

But they had a fallback position if they didn't make money on the albums, that's my point. It's easy to risk a million dollars when you have ten.

You had to know that this was coming.

biccat wrote:Most of the deterrant against people purchasing knockoff CD's isn't that they're knockoffs, it's that they're usually poor quality and illegal (which has more of a psychological than real effect). But if I put a high quality knockoff next to a legitimate copy with the only difference being in price, most people will choose the knockoff.

Depends on how different the price is. And up until recently, it was quite common for recording artists to make almost nothing off of their albums; they were forced to tour in order to earn a living. I think you'll find it is very difficult to bootleg a live concert performance (the event itself, not a video of it).

biccat wrote:Sorry for the poor wording, I was trying to make the narrower point, but I see now that the "chest thumping" really does dominate.

No worries.

Wolf_Ov_The_Void wrote:A guy at my local FLGS has one of those printers @ school and he used it to print 120 space marines and 50 terminators out of it!

Okay it is illegal, okay the models have just 6 different shapes and are all one piece,
but he saved 934$ on those mini's!

I would accept that he didn't have to pay a game shop $934 for those minis. I would even accept that he didn't spend any of his money, but I would contend that someone spent quite a bit of money for him to make those 120 space marines and 50 terminators. The costs of running that printer have to be taken into account.

This is just like kids downloading a codex PDF off the internet and then printing it on Mommy and Daddy's printer. They did avoid giving their local game shop $35 for that codex, However, inkjet printing costs for the consumer printers are between 20 and 30 cents a page for this kind of color printing (depending on how much is text versus pictures and how much of the page is covered http://www.hp.com/sbso/productivity/color/print_cost_calc.html ), so a 150 page codex will cost them between $30 and $45 to print (with ink and paper, etc.). Then they come to the game store and brag on how they saved $35 by grabbing the codex online. I can't help but wonder if that WalMart bag that Dad has when he comes to pick him up has printer ink! All they did was change who got their money, in this case WalMart and the printer company instead of the local game store and GW.

TANSTAAFL. Somebody pays, in the codex case it's Mom and Dad, the mini's were probably paid for by the school.

Tye_Informer wrote:

Wolf_Ov_The_Void wrote:A guy at my local FLGS has one of those printers @ school and he used it to print 120 space marines and 50 terminators out of it!

Okay it is illegal, okay the models have just 6 different shapes and are all one piece,
but he saved 934$ on those mini's!

I would accept that he didn't have to pay a game shop $934 for those minis. I would even accept that he didn't spend any of his money, but I would contend that someone spent quite a bit of money for him to make those 120 space marines and 50 terminators. The costs of running that printer have to be taken into account.

This is just like kids downloading a codex PDF off the internet and then printing it on Mommy and Daddy's printer. They did avoid giving their local game shop $35 for that codex, However, inkjet printing costs for the consumer printers are between 20 and 30 cents a page for this kind of color printing (depending on how much is text versus pictures and how much of the page is covered http://www.hp.com/sbso/productivity/color/print_cost_calc.html ), so a 150 page codex will cost them between $30 and $45 to print (with ink and paper, etc.). Then they come to the game store and brag on how they saved $35 by grabbing the codex online. I can't help but wonder if that WalMart bag that Dad has when he comes to pick him up has printer ink! All they did was change who got their money, in this case WalMart and the printer company instead of the local game store and GW.

TANSTAAFL. Somebody pays, in the codex case it's Mom and Dad, the mini's were probably paid for by the school.

The plastic costs very little and the printer is put to other uses most of the time thus the cost is very low. The same would go to somebody printing a codex off at work and not paying a red cent. You could also put your PDF on a tablet that you already use for other things and not print jack. Your examples are pretty poor for showing how it costs you a lot to do this.

LazzurusMan wrote:Inspiration only...that is NOT a GW design XD

But I see why they are worried...many gamers don't play at GW...so things like this are perfect for those people...plus a 3D printer would save you loads compared to a 40k army...but it's not right.

Stuff like this NEEDS to be stopped.,..but unfortunately the only way is to ban the internet...and we all know that'll never happen.

Why exactly?. If i own a 3d printer, and want to print such model, why should i not be allowed to?, this is not a 3d scan of a GW product, thus i am not printing a GW product.