International copyright talks seek BitTorrent-killer laws

There are no absolutes

I find many of the posters quite rigid in their thinking. unfortunately or fortunately the world is not black and white. If you create something that adds value to someone or something then yes you are entitled to be compensated for it. What many of these people fail to realise is that there will AlWAYS be an element in the community that will attempt to obtain these things for free If you have created something and do not expect an element of theft you are an idiot.

What they also fail to realise is that, as history has shown us, this element will always find a way around whatever barriers are put in place to stop them and the neverending cycle continues. The establishment whines again and louder new laws are passed, the fringe element invent new ways of circumventing them

What I and many others here are sick of is being confined to such archaic business models and practices considering the age we live in Will the establishment finally learn this, probably, but by then it will be too late. There are some out there such as Radiohead and NIN that are taking matters into their own hands and exploring new avenues. Whether these new models are the right ones time will tell. But the one thing I do know is that they should be applauded for their initiative, taking these first steps that the establishment are obviously too afraid to take

@Steve and @I don't get it

.....

Bravo Steve. Give the bum a serve!

.....

"I don't get it"

I was going to give you a big serve as well but on re-reading your post I came to the conclusion that your views are honestly held and deserve some respect.

But you are mistaken.

"As for the rest of this, why do people hate copyright so much?"

People don't hate copyright. They just don't think about it. The reason, which should be obvious to the fools who run the "intellectual property" circus, is that it is an artificial, made up idea, which has no basis in the real world.

Millions of ordinary people the world over, who would never dream of walking out of a shop with a stolen CD, don't feel that they are doing anything wrong by downloading copied content. I did a small poll of my family, friends and some of my children's friends. All but one felt comfortable with swapping or downloading copyrighted material. So only about 1 in 30 in my little circle is on-side with the “protectors”. Which explains why they are losing this war (a war, by the way, which they wage on their own customers).

Any micro economist worth her salt will tell you that people make complex and often mysterious decisions about spending money on something. If they see real value for themselves they will spend!

Take my case. I have recently discovered a website which has hundreds of old, public domain movies. It's like a treasure trove to me. Alas, I soon discovered that I have most of the movies I like, already neatly stacked on my shelves, courtesy of the many retro-compilation DVDs which I have already bought.

When I thought about it, I decided that I will continue to buy the physical DVDs because for the five to ten bucks that each one costs me, I get great value. I don't use up my precious bandwidth, I don't run the risk of bad burns and I don't spend my valuable time. And the distributors get to make a handsome profit. (a DVD costs much less than $1 to produce and deliver in volume, because I pay for the postage.) Everyone benefits and I don't even have to sit through the “you are a potential thief” screens at the beginning of each movie, which is what all modern movie distributors greet their “valued” customers with!

@quick, simple, easy answer - and it is wrong

You, my friend, are dead wrong!!!

If your work is any good, you will be paid by people who value it for itself. Not because it is copyright but because they want you to continue to produce it. Your ultimate audience may only make up 0.01% of the Internet but if you can get to that number of people you've got it made.

People will pay content creators for many reasons, even when they can get the content for free. They pay to show appreciation, to encourage the creator to continue, to contribute to the creative process, to feel they are part of it or because they feel a sense of indebtedness for getting something they value. The cynical view that people will never pay for anything which they can get for free totally ignores the basic human impulse to be fair and generous.

I have spent significant amounts on software, music and other content which was basically given away for free and made payment optional. I have just downloaded the full text of a beautiful book on quantum mathematics in PDF format, including breathtaking illustrations, yet I can hardly wait for the hardcover book to appear sometimes in July, and I even tried to pre-order it. I could sure use the $80-100 which it will cost me but, I would buy it even if it was double or triple that amount.

All artists, writers and other intellectual workers need to earn money (I certainly do), and in my idea of a truly great world they would earn far more than the spivs who live off them. But for truly creative people, earning money is a secondary consideration. I think that we are all bedazzled by the glittering freaks who inhabit the heights of artistic celebrity, with their mega dollars and amoral shenanigans. We forget the millions of creative people whose greatest reward is the acclaim of their audience and who earn a pittance from their efforts (which is not right either). What we need is a platform which pays artists for their creative effort and gives them a means of contacting their audience.

The single most evil thing about “intellectual property rights” and copyright in particular is that it pretends to quantify human creativity in terms of dollars and cents and completely ignores the creative impulse itself. The copyright peddlers want us to believe that if there were no megabucks in it no one will ever write another book, paint another picture or sing a tune again. Their vision of the world enriches them and impoverishes us.

The Internet is an almost unbelievable gift to the truly creative who want to reach out and do what all artists and writers have done throughout the ages: touch their audience.

There is a terrible confusion

In most people's mind, copyright is about the artist getting a fair return for his works. Almost all of the above comments are in agreement on that.

And Disney, Sony, RIAA and co. are operating heavily on this notion, it is their justification.

Except that, when Lawsuits & Co. goes for a new, more restrictive and uglier anti-consumer law they label "anti-piracy", it is not in order to pay the artist more, it is to keep their own coffers well-filled and their powder stashes bulging.

The real issue with copyright law is that copyright is transferable to a non-physical entity (ie. a company). It is companies that are screwing up copyright law, not pirates.

Make the copyright the sole property of an individual or group of individuals, and make it non-transferable, limited to 25 years or the death of the individual - whichever comes first.

Of course, I realize that the RIAA is a group of individuals, but since they have never produced anything and only bought off the rights of actual artists, they do not count.

Disney is also a group of individuals and that group actually makes things, but the group that really makes the films is the actual people who make it, not Disney.

So let us bring copyright back to where it is supposed to be : the property of the artist who creates, not of a corporation that profits from the creation.

Do that, and the very next day RIAA and co. will dissolve into nothing, and their despicable, freedom-limiting DRM and lawsuits will as well.

Right, time to wake up !

(Registered Future)

I say hooray for those who would support further education, as "a little commitment" is a small price that the willing are happy to provide.

And where are the *BSD icons ?

-Mine is a link because of the above.

http://openbsd.org/images/openbsd38_cover.gif

@Steve Roper

"...I still create artistic. No, I don't make a living out of it. But I create art for the love of art as it should be. That's REAL art..."

Does it make you feel better about yourself to think that all of us who make a living from our art must be false/fakes/sell-outs/un-real?

It's all about the money

Consider this problem, counterfeiting is measured as 0.03% of imported IP goods by value whenever it's been measured (e.g. by random sampling of imports by US customs, & by extrapolating the value of seizures etc.).

The cost of customs checks at borders and ports far far outweighs the value of seized goods (by something like a 2 orders of magnitude). We waste far more tax money chasing pennies in infringing goods than we earn from the blocking of counterfeits.

The response by customs is to claim that counterfeit goods risk lives (i.e. trying to add a non economic element to justify their budget), but that just confirms that the economic element alone can't justify the expense of the enforcement.

Likewise with copyright, when copyright was a civil matter, the minor infringement wasn't chased because you could only get costs plus 3x damages. It wasn't profitable to chase tiny infringement. The market took care of separating the major from the minor infringement. That ensured that we always had a net gain from enforcing copyright. Now that criminalization of copyright has occurred, and insane fines introduced, we've lost that 'market' control. Minor or beneficial infringement is enforced, lots of tax payers money is wasted chasing the most petty of things.

I reckon the solution is to bring it back to a purely civil enforcement, let the market separate the important from the unimportant infringement. If it's not worth YOU spending money to protect YOUR PROFITS then why is it worth the tax payer spending money to protect your profits. The gain to society is really only some fraction of the gain to you, so if you won't spend $1000 to recover $3000+costs then why should society pay it instead.

I hear people saying how they're creators and contribute in 'cultural ways' etc. but it's all about the money, they can create all they like, culture is free, make no mistake it's all about the money. It's "I can do this, I want as much money for it as I can get". No different from any other product or service.

But we have to buy goods and services with money and tax money wasted protecting creators rights is money not available in peoples pockets to pay for food and housing and petrol.

@Steve Roper

I have argued several versions of your first point many times and invariably I get howled down for daring to compare intellectual work with what mere peasants, like shoemakers in my usual example or computer technicians in yours, do for a living.

Your second point is even more important. Just how insidious this whole farce can get is readily demonstrated by the following scandalous outrage perpetrated by the estate of the late James Joyce as reported here,

http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol2-3/bloomsday.asp

and here,

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/bwriting/stories/s1196227.htm

If this isn't suppressing the artistic spirit in the name of commercial gain then what is?

Reflection upon itself

@I dont get it...

"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?"

asking... well I'd atleast like to be notified...

as for paying no... I don't care for that... I have a normal job that brings me sufficient funds... Make

money out of copyright should be a secondary occupation not a primary one. Get

yourself some real education and a real job. I help out in the Free Software world

so everything I create is available to anyone for free. I also write poetry which I also

give out freely. I'm also planing a book that I will also give out freely along with a

payed for version for anyone that wants to support it. I have downloaded many

a thing and 99% of that I delete... the 1% that is suitable for keeping I go out and buy.

And yes I'd be glad for their attention... The only thing I require is that the work is attributed to me

that is all.

@quick, simple, easy answer - and it is wrong

"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."

world+dog doesn't need to pay tuition at a university so your point is invalidated. Also ever heard of this brilliant invention called the internet. It has a LOT of information available thus reducing the need to actually go to a university other than for a piece of toilet paper you receive at the end(and for which you are ultimately paying the tuition for not for anything else).

@Steven Raith

Learn to use a search engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_Dark_(P2P)

Here's my modest proposal for those that strive for a creativity based life:

a) make copyrights last 5 years

So that people actually need to do something instead of staring at the ceiling...

b) make patents last 5 years

So that innovation actually progresses not stagnates

Some respect for 'D'

"have a 200GB mp3 collection that I've not paid for"

"It may be wrong it may be immoral it may be supporting terrorists and kiddy fiddlers but I don't give a crap and the reality is that the majority of people don't give a crap either."

"They could have a lot of money off me, by just charging a few pennies for a song"

I can give a certain amount of respect to someone who has enough self-respect to simply admit that they are a thief and that they don't care.

Unfortunately you indicated that, apparently, you feel you are entitled to steal anything that costs more than you think it should - which is, to me, an odd position and smacks more than a little of whining self-justification and weakens my inclination to give the respect mentioned above (if that is a misinterpretation then I apologise).

At least you didn't pretend that your shoplifting (and that's what it amounts to) wasn't some courageous* attempt to right some 'significant' social wrong.

*Always makes me laugh as there is little to no risk involved. If any real risk appeared all but a very few of these courageous revolutionaries would wet their pants and vanish overnight.

@Andraž Levstik

"as for paying no... I don't care for that... I have a normal job that brings me sufficient funds... Make money out of copyright should be a secondary occupation not a primary one."

So basically you're a hobbyist. Isn't that cute.

Re: @ all 'thief!' comments

"If you build your own Ford Mondeo out of raw steel, have you 'stolen a car' from Ford? No, you haven't."

As Sarah has pointed out, Ford might have words with you.

However if you wish to ignore that then I would like to ask you you how you reproduce the music you like - do you use musical instruments, your voice, your talent? To get it closer to your Ford argument - do you build your copy out of raw sound?

When you can say that this is the way you 'copy' music (rather than just a few clicks of the mouse) then, and only then, will your argument make any meaningfull sense.

I won't hold my breath.

@AC RE:"So basically..."

"Are you suggesting that there is a difference between "hobbyists" (as being lesser?) and "professionals" (as being better?) when it comes to "artists"?"

Not at all. I am a professional and I know some 'hobbyists' who are far better than many professionals I have had the misfortune to come in contact with.

Andraž may be exceptionally good at what he does -however when someone who does not have a serious stake in the debate regarding 'payment for protected work' makes remarks those remarks are nothing more than theories unconnected to the real world. That is a mistake made by 'cute' hobbyists.

And if you are going to lecture me again, please refrain from merely stating the obvious.

Jeezus I'm in a bitchy mood today.

RE: RE: 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."

I don't get what this has to do with downloading copyrighted music. I hate McD's, but I wouldn’t go in there and steal from them (and no, im not making a parallel with copyright theft). I just don't go there. There are plenty of Indy labels (real Indy labels, not the fake ones owned by the multi nationals). If you want music, help them grow. Braking copyright under this argument dose not stop the big music companies. It just makes you feel justified.

If you are making a genuine stand against the way copyright works, then good on you. You don’t need to break the law to change it. My real problem is that people are using some perceived injustice to justify breaking the law.

good old brum

Saw it up close a few times. It's built by Rex Garrod, whom people might recognise from Robot Wars (cassius, etc) - top guy.Always had a blast when I was down around Ipswitch.

I know all about the analogies, however. I've been working on a book on this subject for 3 years, and working in general in this field for 10. Don't think there's one I haven't heard now (or for that matter, used at one time or another).

The only thing this whole area is analogous to, is itself. Thats what makes it so hard for people to understand.

Meanwhile, back on topic. If people want to help prevent these sorts of laws, the one thing they could do is join their local Pirate Party - A list of over 30 national parties are on www.pp-international.net

@ImaGnuber

Could say that you produce it out of raw sound if you assorted the bits into a perfect copy, in that way bt could be described as an instrument since it's making things out of raw sound :-) Sound doesn't have to be analogue. You seem to think that whether music is a copy or not is down to effort put in. In that case mass-producing CDs isn't valid music, and so is being sold under false pretences.

Whining Millionaires

THe Greatful Dead allowed anyone to copy their music or make their own tapes at their concerts and circulate. They still made millions. They became so popular, people still purchased their albums, but also bought a boat load of merchandise. Has to be a million dollars worth of Dead Head stickers still on old cars.

I also get a kick at how liberal Hollywood and many musicians are except for the fact of copyright. If they weren't already making millions they would probably get more sympathy. However, I think the majority of people still purchase most of their goods instead of breaking copyright laws. With the exception of perhaps the 12-24 year old demographic. Yet Miley Cirus is still making a killing; some 18 million last year.

Point is... nobody wants to hear millionaires griping, whining and beoxching unless they are watching baseball. Get over it.

@Shakje

The CD is a container holding someone's work (the artist's and the production company). The CD containing that work is offered for sale. You may purchase that product with money - money represents work you have done. You are exchanging your money/work/effort for the work offered in the container (CD). By offering the work in CDs the artist/production company is allowing a wider audience the opportunity to exchange effort in the same way that a live audience might exchange effort with the artist/production company - though the CD method offers it at a (usually, comparatively) reduced rate. If you don't think the effort represented by the CD/recording is worth what is being asked then don't offer a representation of your work in exchange (in other words - don't buy it).

Clicking a mouse and ripping off someone's work is not a sufficient exchange of effort.

And Note: Thinking that the artist/production company is asking too much in exchange is not sufficient justification for theft... nor is complaining that the production company is not giving enough to the artist - it doesn't matter how often you hear those excuses used.

(I suppose a download rip-off could, at a stretch, also be viewed as the equivalent to sneaking into a performance without paying. And no doubt there would probably be some people who would think they were clever for doing that too.)

@ImaGnuber

"The CD is a container holding someone's work (the artist's and the production company)."

Your whole argument about copyright is based on this premise. But not only is it false, it is a demonstratively stupid idea

A CD sold on the market does NOT hold the artist's work. It is a reproduction of his or her work. The original master may be said to be the work and it is the thing which takes effort to make. From then on technology takes over and it has nothing to do with artistic effort.

In fact this whole issue only exists because technology has enabled the capture and reproduction of artistic works - not just music but painting, writing and real soon now, sculpture as well, thanks to the emerging 3D printing technologies. As it stands it takes the same effort for an artist to make a single CD as a hundred million CDs. Before the advent of these technologies an artist who wanted ten audiences to hear her work would have had to to sing it ten times. Of course she would be paid ten times to do so, which is the correct thing to do. (What painters did in those days is even more interesting.)

As for the production/distribution company: you are of course correct. Their capital investment and expended work is represented by each CD they sell and they have a valid claim for payment. So I have no objection to paying them the 90c per CD which represents their costs plus about 200% profit. That should see them grow rich and fat because most other retail industries only dream of returns like that. Of course if I find an alternative production/distribution channel they are likely to go the way of the buggy-whip makers. The market giveth and the market taketh away.

The irony in all of this is that technology, which enabled this idiocy to arise in the first place has now enabled the public to take back the “public domain”. The governments of the world, egged on by vested interests, can pass all the laws they want and they can bash down as many doors as they want and they can fine or imprison as many people as they want. The jig is up. Artists will once again be paid per performance. Those amongst them who are smart will distribute their works via available channels and make that 200% themselves and grow rich and fat – and good luck to them. And their descendants for the 70 years after they die will just have to live off the interest!

By the way, I deeply resent the way “thief”, “pirate” and other derogatory terms are waved around in this discussion, by you no less than others. There are indeed thieves and pirates in this field but a careful examination of the history of this topic will quickly reveal which side of the counter they are on.

@Joe M

"A CD sold on the market does NOT hold the artist's work. It is a reproduction of his or her work."

You might want to have a look at aesthetic/philosophical discussions which have been going on for several decades.

"What painters did in those days is even more interesting."

They often produced multiple copies, or paid others to do it (usually employees/apprentices) and got paid for each 'copy'. Printmaking is another method of multiplying the profit/making the artist's work more accessible to more people. Any moderately good history will mention these and other methods.

"So I have no objection to paying them the 90c per CD which represents their costs plus about 200% profit."

I assume you have taken into account the costs/payments due the performer and the staff and the production/manufacturing facilities etc? I'll take your word on that and should assume this is just your way of objecting to what you perceive to be 'excessive' profits? I hope this isn't the usual half-assed whining justification for theft as in 'I think they make too much money so I'll teach them a lesson'?

"Artists will once again be paid per performance. Those amongst them who are smart will distribute their works via available channels and make that 200% themselves and grow rich and fat – and good luck to them."

I somehow doubt that 'and good luck to them' was meant ironically though that would be the more accurate interpretation.

"And their descendants for the 70 years after they die will just have to live off the interest!"

Oh dear, he objects to the money someone else might receive. I wonder if you would refuse it if a significant amount came your way? Give it away to feed the less fortunate perhaps? I'm sure you would, Joe.

Object as much as you want to the terms 'thieves' and 'pirates'. Someone who steals is a thief no matter how they justify it to themselves and 'pirate' has long been an accepted term for someone who, yes, pirates recordings etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong but your objections seem to be to the amounts of money someone else is making - yes? Well, you don't have to pay those amounts do you? Oh wait - you can refuse to pay and still get what you want - by stealing! Wow! What a solution! Isn't there a term to describe that? Something about having your cake and... oh, what was it, Joe? Joe?

Oh and I would appreciate it if you would send me your name and address so that I can be certain of never hiring you for anything - you might object to something I do (like making more money than you think I should) and use it as a justification for stealing from me - you devilish little revolutionary, you.

@ AC Re @Steve Roper

"Does it make you feel better about yourself to think that all of us who make a living from our art must be false/fakes/sell-outs/un-real?"

Considering I never actually said that, or even implied it... nice strawman. So yes. It makes me feel all warm inside. Especially when I have the guts to put my real name to what I say and you don't.

@ImaGnuber - Oh dear, oh dear

There is little point in responding to your entirely fatuous scribble except that you have put words in my mouth and twisted the meaning of my post.

“I somehow doubt that 'and good luck to them' was meant ironically though that would be the more accurate interpretation.”

No. It was not meant ironically and only a twisted mind could have implied it to be so. It was meant as a wish and a complement. I have a deep regard, affection and respect for creative people, and I'm fortunate enough to be able to deal with many of them daily in my life. I wish them the best, always.

“I'll take your word on that and should assume this is just your way of objecting to what you perceive to be 'excessive' profits? I hope this isn't the usual half-assed whining justification for theft as in 'I think they make too much money so I'll teach them a lesson'?”

Wrong again. I have absolutely no objection to anyone making any amount of money in any way as long as it is legal. It is preferable that it should also be ethical, but hey, this is the real world and I accept that people will always try to find a wrinkle and work it to their advantage. And, no I'm not a socialist and I don't object to windfall profits either.

The 90c is what a CD is worth to me and I was pointing out that by paying this amount I am not actually depriving anyone of what is due to them. If they want to sell the product at $30 and people buy it at that price, good luck to them as well!

“Oh dear, he objects to the money someone else might receive.”

You are a real dope my friend! Can't you read anything without putting a cynical twist on it? I don't object to, I applaud the fact that creativity will benefit not just artists, but also their descendants. All without Disney twisting legislative arms on behalf of Mickey Mouse.

“I wonder if you would refuse it if a significant amount came your way? Give it away to feed the less fortunate perhaps? I'm sure you would, Joe.”

This and your further comments are below contempt and show you up to be a silly, cynical, grubby little man (or is it woman?) whose primary concern in life appears to be money and little else. I will be generous enough to wish you well in your financial endeavors, but please in future don't pollute the intellectual space with your puerile name-calling and innuendo.

Thank you D...

I was just trying to get over being grumpy about poor old Ima when I read your post. It restored my sense of humor in one go.

@Joe M & D et al

Yes, cynicism is an expression of distrust of someone's motives... I was, whether correct or not, impolite. Suffice to say that we differ and probably always will... unless you come to your senses, of course :-)

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some ranting and raving to do elsewhere.