A new international trade agreement could seek to strengthen criminal sanctions against BitTorrent tracker sites that claim not to profit from internet users sharing music, movies and software. Many major tracker sites say advertising revenues and user donations are used to pay server and bandwidth costs. The operators of the …
another victory for rentier capitalism (look it up).
Ahem; DOWNLOADS != LOST SALES
Probably 95% of the world's mp3s are held by people who WOULD NOT under any circumstance have bought the music on CDs, had the mp3 not been available. The sooner people realise this the better.
Watch out for...
the angry freetards.
Theyll be posting any time now.
... an Encrypted, Tor style Bit-Torrent network/client.
Any expectation on the RIAA or MPAA to change their business models to be more consumer friendly is a complete waste of time; hence, it is better to resort to a private encrypted system that cannot/doesn't track users.
Buckets of fail everywhere
Stopping the copying of songs, movies and software action list:
DRM technology - didn't work
Making special CDs - didn't work
Suing everyone ever - didn't work
Arresting people - didn't work
Making laws - didn't work
Making extra-territorial laws - didn't work
Making enormous global laws - TBC (but probably "didn't work")
Seriously, anti-BT tracker? I don't even use Bit Torrent, but this is lame in the extreme.
welcome to serfdom 21st century style. Here comes a new dark age fuelled and funded by grotesque fatcat businessmen who would willingly starve the meek, trample the downtrodden, fund the whoremongers/warmongers and call them just.
They destroy creativity, stifle innovation, strongarm laws through national courts with lobbyists that detract from the quality of life of the normal person and call it justice. Burn them all.
Conform Obey Consume Die
i'd get my coat but what's the point?
In the UK the 3 strikes legislation will not be implemented for a long time as the last thing our 'listening government' need is to push through more laws that'll piss off the average voter.
As well as the totally impractical nature of getting the system to work e.g. shared access, government making it more and more necessary to have a Broadband connection.
I mean last weeks Big Idea was to give away free broadband to the underclasses and to close the digital divide, but these are people who will very likely to use file sharing. So one week you get free broadband and the next week you're banned.
I forget this is NuLabour so they'll push it though and waste millions in doing so.
Even Paris can see this won't work.
Profit... what cobblers
This is the same profit that Alan Ellis made from Oink is it? What nonsense. That guy used minimal donations to pay for nothing but hardware and bandwidth, yet Cleveland police reckon he made hundreds of thousands... idiots.
All goes to show how dangerous it is to let non-tech savvy people control technology governance.
Advance IntelAIgents Virtual Defence ...... ESPecial CyberIntelAIgent Field Forces
"It includes a proposal to ditch any requirements under national law that copyright infringers must be seeking to profit in order to be judged criminal." And if a Pirating Entity were to XXXXPress that Motivation is that everything should be Free with Money the Fuel and Oil which Drives the Machine's IntelAIgents Forward ...... into Virtual Reality Territory.
Stake ur Registered Futures and Derivatives Claims here....
@ Watch out for...
Why waste time with a point or an argument when you've got a handy catchphrase that manages to be a strawman, false dichotomy and an adhominem attack all in one?
Out of interest, which label do you work for?
BIG F----ing PROBLEM
This particular change to the law would mean that I (and any number of website operators) could now be arrested/convicted/etc for running a gallery of j-pop idol (insert any other kind of gallery) photographs?
How I love well thought out laws.
Copyright can kill!
Well, it won't really kill you, but the trend i am witnessing is one which has the possibility of turning the majority of people into criminals, whether it be for something minor or more, and more concerningly, people who legitimately purchase music but don't pay for the same thing twice (let's face it, even if its in two places, the license should surely cover it not being played in more than one location at the same time?) could become victims. Whilst I understand going for torrent sites, torrent sites are a far stretch from the majority of people they seem to target.
Also the valuations seem ludicrious and only serve to bankrupt individuals. That's a solid clad guarentee that they'll never even be able to afford to buy music, movies, etc again, whether they had intention to or not. This war on copyright is turning into the same retardation that the War on Drugs has taken, and users and innocent people getting caught up and turned into victims.
Do these companies honestly thinking suing the general public would really get them higher sales??
Why does Google always get away with links to torrents? They have to be the largest and best torrent tracker there is.
Just Google "xxx torrent" where 'xxx' is the thing you want to download and they'll give you either indirect links via other trackers or a direct link from their own cache, just in case the original tracker has been closed down.
They have plenty of money to go after, maybe too much?
I buy nothing...
...unless I can download it first to try it out.
Let's see - every box set of 24, box set of heroes - in fact ALL the CD's & DVD'sI own have been tried before being purchased.
There is no way I am forking out large sums for crippled advert and 'warning lest you be a pirate' encrusted media without getting to see if it's any good or not.
I lived without a TV or buying any cd's /dvd's quite happily before I got broadband and started downloading stuff. I am sure I can go back to that way of life.
I don't know how many other people operate in the same way - but I hope it's a lot.
PS. I also think they should charge you at the cinema when you exit for the % of the film you managed to sit through (upto say the last 20 minutes or something) rather than take the money up front - maybe then box office figures would be more accurate for gauging public opinion.
Time to rethink copyright
Look, if bankrupting people who go anywhere near copyright is needed then it shows that there is a fundamental problem with copyright itself. It's not the huge earner that it's portrayed as, and if criminalizing millions of people is what's needed to protect a minor earner, then we need to rethink.
Then there's the laws vs treaties thing. To get this through they're trying to bypass the law making process of each country. But that is the cornerstone of a democracy, if you can't get consensus on it then it is not right. The fact you can't get it through the law making process proves it's flawed.
I reckon it's time to completely discard copyright.
I was all for people making and selling works, even having an exclusive on their own works for a limited time so they can get a chance to profit. But it is just profit we're talking about, the right to make a profit isn't so great that we need to lock up millions to do it, or bankrupt millions to do it either.
There comes a point where this is just a game for lawyers that's a net detriment to society as a whole, and I reckon we're already past that point.
Areas where creative works aren't possible are just as vibrant, they're just less commercial.
I think ACTA says more about the problems with copyright as it stands than it does about any problem.
waste of time !!!!!!
You don't need the internet to share files !
Will they ban glastonbury if they get news there may be a lan party there?????
Mine's the one with the usb hard drives and the wifi dongle in the pocket
but torrents don't infinge copyright.
This all seems fine and no problem to pirate bay since torrents are just pointers to pointers to copyright material and not the copyright material in question.
If that weren't the case all the search engines could be done for copyright infringement.
safe but slow
"Time for an Encrypted, Tor style Bit-Torrent network/client."
That would be Bit-Torrent over I2P (http://www.i2p2.de) - the trouble is, when you add any sort of formidable encryption layer to Bit-Torrent it becomes bit-trickle.
@ I buy nothing
Yep same here, and the amount of music I have bought because I have swapped/downloaded music before is far more than I have bought because of just seeing a CD or listening to Music Industry Adverts.
As for Radio there is very little I have heard that I like, its normally the same old poppy crap,
The main places I get new music from is going on Last.fm finding similar artist to what I like then downloading some songs and if I like them I'll buy it.
The second way is from music used in adverts, some ad-men seem to have a very good taste in music. If the music industry wants to sell more songs they should get advertisers to credit songs in the subtitles in the ads so the populace can find out what the song is without having to go to a website like commercialbreaksandbeat.co.uk
Pay per view/listen
Most seem to be missing the fact that what the ASS of AMerica et al are aimimg for is their eutopia of everyone having to pay each time they watch/listen to/use something.
Anyone for getting back to only going to live performances? - that way, the artists get paid for the actual work they do and the leeches get nothing!
I've never understood...
...how they can get $9000 per song without proving that $9000 worth of damage was inflicted. At minimum, one copy was nicked by that user and not shared. At maximum - let's be generous - maybe 100 copies were then swiped by other nefarious civilisation destroyers. Now, if a track costs roughly a dollar, then only $100 per track was caused in damage. Where the hell does $9000 come from? Complete and utter nonsense designed to "make an example" of some poor KaZaA user, who gets made penniless so these bullies can try and scare everyone else into obediently buying what they're told to.
Stop sharing online
If this did happen, people will find ways to get around it and those that can't will rent and burn or get copies off thier friends, sort of what happened in the 80s'. then what are you going to do, stop renting because doing so will stop people buying the crap you put out.
Easier way is put the prices down and stop allowing some piss head in a suit state lets put 5 boys together and get them to release a crappy album. Or we could get a young girl to release an album dressed in catholic school clothes so all the pervs will buy her stuff and young girls will want to grow up to be like her.
Do I actually need to explain the avatar.
copyright holders drive protocol innovation
The fact of the matter is that many protocols used on the internet are not well suited to the way they are actually used. What we want is not a real connection to what appears to be the Register's servers, but a certified correct copy of the Register's content, from anywhere it happens to be. RIAA and partners have initiated a protocol arms race producing Napster and torrents which has both rendered their litigation powerless, and created the basis for a higher performance more secure internet, with verifiably non-spoofed content and without a single point of failure for given content. Bravo!
Anyone who didn't expect this and previous attempts to control copyright violations is naive in the extreme. Attempts made to this point may have failed and future attempts may also fail but you would be foolish to think such attempts are likely to cease anytime soon.
Please don't bother replying to this post with justifications for your downloading. Save your energy for whining about the bad law your activities will provoke.
how long before we're ditching mass media anyway? Most of the stuff I see is text because I so bored and annoyed with the films and tv shows being shoved at me at such high prices.
To the "I buy nothing" AC..
Yep, with you there.. I will (and indeed prefer) to pay a fair price for decent-quality media as long as it's not DRM-encrusted. I suspect that getting hold of a few mp3s works as a word of mouth sales tool for a lot of people, I know I have discovered interesting stuff from being pointed at an mp3- if I like it, it's probably enough to make me buy it, if I don't, I generally don't like it enough to keep it..
That said (beware, whinge incoming), I recently decided to be all numeejafuturetechnology/digital wotnots, and had a horrible experience. I wanted a particular game for the PC, went to the official site and snagged. a demo. All good, fantastic fun- so I decided that I wanted the whole thing. Remembering that the official site made much of the fact that I could buy it at direct2drive.co.uk, I decided to go for some near-immediate gratification. I bought a copy there, at nearly twice the price of the physical media, on the basis that I could probably have it downloaded by the next morning- much quicker than waiting for a delivery via Royal Phail (tm).
All I can say is ouch. Direct2drive don't "allow" refunds after more than 48 hours. The title was a 6 gig download. The fastest their site was managing was 100k/sec. The "support" site was insistent that people should get at least twice that. Checked out my connection in case of contention- 500+k/sec from various US, UK and euro sites. Tried d2d again, 69k/sec was the fastest this time. Urgh. downloads terminated early, stalled, you name it. Total crapola. The ticket that I submitted to "support" was answered with a single line which could have come from a badly-adjust Markov chain parser, four days later.
I could have ordered it from play.com, had it in two days for half the price. I could have grabbed a torrent and had it in a few hours for free. If this is the future, then I am adapting all my hardware to run on coal. Digital fulfilment must not be shoddy, to gain consumer trust- especially in these years after the deCSS/Sony Rootkit/DRM/random litigation and other loathesome media pimping company adventures. People are increasingly tiring of vat-grown product and soaring prices. Restrictions on fair use (remember the recent speculative attempts to brand ripping CDs onto your iPods as criminal, folks?) and insulting consumers with the taint of criminality might just be the final nail in the coffin for some folks. Treat me like crap, brand me a criminal and accuse me of stealing your stuff, and I just might do that.
Oh, gotta go, Soulless Hollywood Remake II opens tonight, and I have tickets!
Re: Oliver Stieber
I've seen a lot of people say that they can't take down the trackers, because on the same principle they'd have to go after search engines as well. Why do you assume they won't? That once the tracker sites have been taken down, search engines won't be next on the list? Not to be taken down, but to have results modified to remove links to copyrighted material. That effort will have even more lobbying weight behind it than the anti-tracker campaign. Just imagine how much governments worldwide would like to establish a precedent that it can influence the results on a search - it won't be "search for word, get what algorithm finds" it'll be "search for word, get what Gordon Brown allows you to see".
Google will certainly comply for the sake of a quiet life, as it has with requests by the Chinese government to snitch on dissidents.
All arguments along the lines of "They can't do X - they'd have to do Y as well!", where Y seems too ludicrous to contemplate, are dangerously blasé. With the war in Iraq, the war on drugs, the Millennium Dome, etc etc it's difficult to imagine a Y that actually couldn't happen.
We don't need their crap
Don't pay to see movies at release in the theatre and don't buy first release DVDs/CDs; wait for however many months before it goes on sale. You don't need this stuff to live and you sure don't have to pay top money for it.
I dont get it...
I agree with the idea of trying befor you buy. As for the rest of this, why do people hate copyright so much? Yes it is badly enforced, but that dose not give you the right to have somthing you have not paid for. As for the idea that "if they priced it right I would pay" firstly that gose against th idea of "well I wasent going to buy it anyway" and secondly the music industry can price how they like. You don't need music. If they want to price it a £100000 a CD then good for them. Noone will buy it, but thats there choice.
I would like to know how you would feal if someone took somthing you made (A picture, code, music, whatever) and used it with out asking, or paying? What if there responce was "well you should be glad of our attention, and if you want paying, we dont want it"? Youd be pissed off wouldent you?
@safe but slow
Forget bittorrent what we need is enough users on perfect dark.
With copyright terms at 70+ years (or longer, depending how you read the wording of some laws), with "fair use" being roundly ignored, and with the rise of "Son of London Company of Stationers", I wouldn't be surprised in the least if this latest attack on "copy right" passes as well. Hell, they've almost managed to kill off the transfer of works to the public domain already.
They're trying to repeal all the rights granted by the Statute of Anne of 1710, and so far they're succeeding. Sad part is, we're letting them do it.
I've been buying from the clearance rack for ages
and since the entertainment industry (laughing stocks?) haven't been putting out much in recent years worth a second glance, I haven't even been swayed to look at the new releases racks in quite a while. Soon enough, gasoline will cost so much that nobody will be able to buy new stuff and even the execs at the RIAA/MPAA/etc and their constituents will be seeing more red in their bottom lines than ever. This will stimulate them to seen out even more pirates and falsely accuse more than just a couple of folks and cause their own top heavy companies to crash and burn like a plane with a drunk pilot. Unfortunately it will take some severe recession/depression in the economy for this scenario to play out and that would just suck all around. It also may be the only way to get the big companies to get their thumb out of their a$$ and actually try to produce quality work again instead of this commodity gutter entertainment that most of the media has turned into.
Well lets hope then...
...that they try to sue Google for linking to these darnded Torrent Tracker sites! And the BBC, Sky, ITV, and every other TV operator- and the RIAA/MPAA themselves- for giving BitTorrent so much publicity.
And what about the legitimate uses of Torrents? Are they going to compensate the Linux distros for their vastly increased bandwidth bills?
And Google wouldn't comply too quick with some poxy pressure group that's probably worth less than Google itself mouthing off at them to get rid of their search results. Even a government would probably face a helluva problem- after Torrent trackers were gone the next would be links to anything P2P related, then anything MP3 related (only DRM-enabled format results) and probably they'd then try to take off the porn.
Angelgates as compared to the RIAssA/MPAA he's a bloody saint!
If filesharing gets to the point where you can have an unfriendly knock on the door from your country's equivilant of Stormtroopers or the Ministry of Information (Brazil) then people will just resort to other means of filesharing, like the Cubans do with USB flash drives:
which is a form of "Sneakernet" that I'm sure many have participated in with floppy discs before they got internet access: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneakernet
another failure waiting to happen, it wont stop copying, it wont stop file sharing and it will make new criminals over night (plus make a mockery of national legal systems as its bypassing their legal process).
If bittorrent magically (as thats what it would take) vanished over night it wouldn't stop sharing for a second. Even if ALL p2p protocols and applications vanished over night, people would still share their files with private FTP's, websites and other such methods that exists before the dawn of p2p. Hell kill the internet all together and people will still share their files (they will just burn them to CD/DVD and send them to each other). File sharing isn't going away and the sooner the RIAA realizes this the better.
As for the try before you buy thing I agree with this. I pirate all the games that I play, the ones I like I go and buy the originals for (mainly for the online play) the ones I don't like I delete. This saves me having to have to get refunds off crappy games (plus saves the stores having used stock). TV I download when it comes out, my household has a full sky package I could get the programs when they they are on tv, but if they are on sooner else where im not waiting im watching them as soon as I can get them. Movies well good ones I goto the cinema for ones I really like I buy.
All of this I don't share and upload anything to other user's (people might call me a leech, but then I don't use torrents anyway). But Im selective I try my media and if I like it I pay for it, and in respect for TV I want it as soon as its out not in 6 months time after Ive heard all about it from someone over ventrilo etc. This is how I choose to use and obtain media and its how I will carry on law's/trade agreements be damned.
Paris because id like to try her before I buy ;)
maybe it's about time...
I haven't downloaded any copyrighted materials, yet. I use bittorrent to get .isos of new Linux releases, and so far, that's about all.
But I can't play my legally purchased DVD's on my laptop, evidently because I don't use an "approved" operating system. I find this to be quite annoying.
Recently, my daughter, who has fewer personal inhibitions regarding downloading of copyrighted materials than I showed me how the same materials that I paid good money for and which did not play on my equipment and OS could be obtained at no cost and would work just fine.
I'm not certain how "fair use" would apply, but it would seem to me that if I can't use media I purchased on my equipment, I should be entitled to download functional versions at no cost and with no violation of any law.
Taken a step further, why the heck should I pay for defective, i.e., DRM crippled, media in the first place.
As I stated earlier, I haven't gone there yet, and so far all audio CD's I've purchased work fine on whatever equipment I choose to play it on, so that's not an issue for me. But I can certainly sympathize with and support anyone who downloads materials when he is unable to purchase functional versions of it legally.
This simply proves time has come ...
... to tell people to avoid products made by organized crime. I'm not saying "don't purchase", I'm saying "don't purchase, or download". Simply ignore the products. Tell anybody you catch using the products they are an immoral lowlife. If the music-distribution-industry forces through this, it proves that ANYONE listening to their product is an imoral lowlife.
plan to torpedo consumer rights in democratic countries
That is what the subtitle should have been.
Looking closer at these issues this is very US run exercise - bullying democratic countries such as Sweden. Some years ago the US was trying to bully Sweden to change its public freedom of information legislation because the Church of Scientology disliked the fact that when they went to court in Sweden the actual court evidence became publicly available material. Nowdays the US lobby groups really dislike the idea that Sweden has consumer legislation which for example gives consumers the right to be in control of music which they have bought (the UK consumer does not find support in the UK law to rip the content of their own legally bought CD:s to mp3). This also means that traditionally it has been supported by Swedish law to circumvent DRM for personal use of music which you have bougth legally (e.g. if you bought it you have the right to play it - the seller has no saying in what technology you use for that purpose). It has also been supported to make copies of legally bought music (such as CD) and rip it for your personal use on your own MP3 player etc (even if it was on a copy-protected CD).
The US administration has lobbied for years to force Sweden to change both its several hundred years freedom of public information acts and also its consumer rigth legislation. It is ironic that it would be Sweden which is one of the mainly targeted countries with these issues considering that Sweden is the biggest producer, creator and exporter of MUSIC per capita in the world - even when looking at music production in general Sweden is among the ten top music exporting countries in the world. So it is 'funny' that the artists and creators themselves are flourishing under the Swedish system...
Part of the torrent I downloaded earlier
Now then. Was that part of
1) Legal free software using torrenting as a cost-effective way to distribute FLOSS?
2) A screenie of the episode of my favourite show I missed last week, which was *free to air* (ie. no fee was payable to watch it)
3) a copy of a film or album which I could have bought at a local store but didn't.
Answer: Nobody can tell *just* from watching the stream. plus (1) and (2) don't cause financial loss to anyone (indeed (1) saves them money!)
Mines the one with the patch cables hanging out the pocket ...
quick, simple, easy answer - and it is wrong
Copyright laws make it possible for me to enjoy the fruits of my labor. I hold about eight copyrights on various technical manuals, I print them and sell them. If you want to know what I know about the subject, you have to pay me.
I see no difference (other than I don't charge anywhere near as much) between what I do and paying tuition at a university - if you want to know what they know about the subject, you have to pay them.
The existence of copyright protection is what makes it possible for me to get paid. If there were NO money in doing this, I wouldn't bother, and I would keep whatever I know to myself - just like the secretive guilds in the middle ages did.
People have asked me why I do not publish my books on electronic media (web, DVD, etc.), pointing out the great savings I could realize by not putting ink on paper. The reason I do NOT do that and WILL NOT do that is simple - once that book is digital, it is GONE, and I'll never make a cent on it again, ever. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?
Sure, you could copy my book on a photocopier, but that takes rather more time and effort than three clicks on a mouse.
My books sell well, evidently people think I have something to say worth paying for - and that is flattering. I am NOT going to give away the store because if I do, I won't have any incentive to write more books other than to stroke my ego, and guess what - you can't eat ego, nor does it pay the bills.
Before you gloat about getting something free, look at the larger picture. If no one can get paid anything for creative work, then an awful lot of creative work is not going to get done, and we will all be the poorer for it.
As far as "music" is concerned, I think an awful lot of what passes for music these days is cynical marketing and exploitation - and it is not worth buying. So I don't, but that is my opinion, people's tastes vary. My favorite composers have been dead for centuries, and their work is now in the public domain.
The RIAA has got to be the dumbest, most anti-consumer, corporate-owned-droid collection of morons the world has ever seen. Yes, there needs to be some way to recompense artists and writers, but if you ever want to see the WRONG ways to do it, RIAA has that down pat.
Anybody got some better ideas? How would YOU provide payment to the people who entertain you and educate you? You can't say their material is worthless, so how will you get them paid? (RIAA input not solicited here . . . )
this'll slip through the government...
the next time we have some sort of "Terrorist attack" seem as how that's always the best time to put in these nasty laws that people don't like. Since them Sheeple are all watching the nooze and not their government.
Forget bittorrent what we need is enough users on perfect dark.
I fail to see what a classic 64 bit first person shooter has to do with file sharing.
And as an excuse to post that atrocious piece of sarcasm, I will add to the voices noting that the RIAA et all need to look at thier distribution models very closely and see where they are failing, rather than taking the easy way out and attempting to criminalise people.
The internet has, whether they like it or not, introduced a whole new "try before you buy" idea, and whether it's legal is irrelevant - they have to sit and pay attention to survive [and continue to make money for coke parties etc].
that is all :-)
@ I dont get it
"dose not give you the right to have somthing you have not paid for."
I am using air right now without paying, does that piss you off?
"I would like to know how you would feal if someone took somthing you made (A picture, code, music, whatever) and used it with out asking, or paying?"
That has happened to me, often, but I realise you can't possibly charge for something that nobody wants to pay for.
@I dont get it...
It no so much the hating of copyrights. It's the abuse committed by the likes of Disney (20+whatever years extension to copyright) to protect profits from a mouse.
This sort of abuse of our laws and lobbying does not help the public, it does not promote artists to create new works (as it was originally intended) but it enables large corporations to line their pockets and as a result the people suffer with new draconian laws that better serve the few in power (want a new one? Just pay the right people).
The people pushing for these kind of laws are not doing it for the artists or people creating new things, they just doing it to ensure in the future they can continue to make money off of the artists backs.</rant>
All people are equal. Some are just more equal than others. -- to paraphrase Orwell.
To all the anti-copyright people - get off your fat arses and go through the process of creating something. Make some cash out of it and then tell me you're against copyright laws.
If you lack any perceivable talent then just stop whinging and buy the CD - they're cheap as chips and no-one will ever stop you making backups to your heart's content.
A bit tangential and theoretical...
This is really related to the issue of simple P2P file sharing, but couldn't someone release a virus that sets a particular, common folder to be shared if someone has one of a list of file-sharing apps installed. Then, if some one gets caught sharing files they just claim they were affected by that virus?
Or someone just anonymously spread a version of said apps where the default configuration is the shared folder, and everyone just say they must have installed that version?
A better way
Perhaps the RIAA (or whatever they are called) would get better publicity if instead of the fine of $9000 per song mentioned earlier went to the the artists who created the song in the first place instead of RIAA coffers.
@Ardkin & Miami Mike
Well said, both of you.
To the anti-copyright nimrods - if you don't MAKE YOUR LIVING from your own copyrighted materials then STFU.
@quick, simple, easy answer - and it is wrong
" The reason I do NOT do that and WILL NOT do that is simple - once that book is digital, it is GONE, and I'll never make a cent on it again, ever. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? "
This is not exactly correct. It all depends... on the quality of your work and on the size and interest of the market! I can give you the example of Bruce Eckel's books... I bought some of them after I have downloaded (and read) them for free and legally; I have also bought other books after I have read them (not so legally). Obviously there are books which I have tried to read I haven't bought.
I think Stephen King did the best test when he released one of his books online, chapter by chapter and did something like US$750,000... without any of it going to the publisher and other middle-persons!
IMHO, copy right should give the right to be only one receiving credit and compensation for the commercial exploration of your work! These days many authors don't get it because their work is considered "work for hire"!
@Miami Mike, What if
"The existence of copyright protection is what makes it possible for me to get paid. If there were NO money in doing this, I wouldn't bother, and I would keep whatever I know to myself - just like the secretive guilds in the middle ages did."
Yet funny enough people who want profit find a way to make it. e.g. games companies suffered from piracy, they started putting the game online and selling subscriptions (WoW etc.).
At some point the damage these extreme laws, no not laws, treaties, do is too great. Look at the US economy, a huge trade deficit, even in IT. It wanted to be a 'copyright' economy but has made itself uncompetitive in the process. Who is going to buy copyright material if they can no longer afford the roof over their heads?
Something has to be done, we can't just create ever more extreme IP laws face ever more restrictions, and pay ever more for the nth copy of the same product until we can't compete in the world anymore.
@Miami Mike and others.
I would strongly recomend that you go to the baen free libary and read the prime palaver...
http://www.baen.com/library/ anactdotal evidence it maybe...but at least its backed up some kind of figures, rather than untested statements...
- JLaw, Kate Upton exposed in celeb nude pics hack
- Google flushes out users of old browsers by serving up CLUNKY, AGED version of search
- China: You, Microsoft. Office-Windows 'compatibility'. You have 20 days to explain
- GCHQ protesters stick it to British spooks ... by drinking urine
- Twitter declines to deny JLaw tweet scrubdown after alleged iCloud NAKED PHOTOS hack