'Shame on the register to post wrong informations' Heard the one about The Pirate Bay being ripped off? This week there was a lovely story of the Swedish scofflaws being annoyed by clone sites. Many of you enjoyed the wedding-cake sized dollops of irony in this, but some furious freetards didn't. El Reg has got it all wrong, they insist. MarKo1 is a newcomer to the Reg forums …
I *think* that's intentional, but this whole debate is now waist deep in layers of irony and I'm not sure where anyone is standing anymore. For that matter, I'm not sure anyone *is* standing anymore. Perhaps we are all just floating in someone else's "ha ha, only serious".
@AC Well it is 'total clear to everybody' apart from you it seems? Maybe that is a problem with your understanding of the situation rather than my post? Or spelling it out 'you are just reading it wrong'.
That aside in a total and utter epiphany here at technophobe towers various universal truths have seen the light of day. One being that whilst SOPA is a US law, and may not apply here in the environs of Tunbridge Wells, everybody should fight the good fight. The time has come to make a stand!
Other truths that have come to light are -
Freetards , far from being freeloading scum who in any decent society would be taken off horse whipped, and then pilloried by anybody with a mind for a spot of pillory, are in fact bastions of the whole of human civilization. Bravely risking life and liberty (well possibly disconnection from the internet) in their endless fight to preserve the culture of humanity. They are the most courageous of all. Lets make today a hug a freetard day (well so long as they showered recently anyway).
SOPA far from being a somewhat over the top attempt by corporations to enforce IP rights, is in fact the legislation of Beelzebub's own hand maiden. Sucking the very life out of the breasts of the creative industries. Dragging them all down to the very fires of hell.
@Ken - see above mentioned epiphany
Ha haa, nice!
RE SOPA though, as el reg is nominally a UK site, I should point out that we already have laws to that effect here, as seen in action with PB and newsbin blocking. We are an interesting test case, it will be interesting to see if music sales go up following the pirate bay block.
Personally, I think that 15-30 year olds, who buy the majority of pop media, have a set disposable income to spend on entertainement. Reductions in film and music sales are explained by the games industry - the increase in game spending over the past 10 years is a bout equivilent to the reduction music and movie spending.
We do need to address this piracy thing, but I think web 2.0 is just as much of a problem. I don't buy music anymore - I just go on soundcloud. If you know a lot of people who are hobby musicians, there is no need to listen to anything else. In a past decade, some of them might have been able to go pro. Not today.
The same goes for fiction - I don't buy books, my fiction need is met by amatuer fiction groups. Sometimes I contribute stories, most of the time I just read them. In a past decade, some of the writers would have had small success, not today.
There is an amatuer theatre group in my town, they are quite good. When CGI software gets easy enough that they can hook up with an internet artist group and make battlestar galactica 2, mainstream cinema is screwed.
Not sure how to fix this, but convinced that it is a bad thing. Creative work is being devalued to the point where I think we will be paid to do boring things, and consume creative things produced by hobiests. Death of an industry.
I don’t think ideas should be restricted. Can you imagine the first spear or the first bow and arrow being patented? It’s ridiculous - copying other’s ideas, other’s behaviour, other’s way of speaking, it’s what we do! Somehow we’ve be tricked into putting made up restrictions on that behaviour for the benefit of a relatively small few.
I do think some rules need to exist. Thus, you shouldn’t be allowed to sell a band’s performance of a song. However, you should be allowed to do your own performance (copying lyrics and notes) and sell that. If you can make a Ford Fiesta cheaper or better than Ford, then why can’t you? Because Ford came up with the design first?
Contrary to the popularly held belief of progress being stalled, it would probably be sped up - no restrictions on the copying of ideas, no lawyers stopping someone with a slightly improved tablet selling it. The world wants new, better things and as long as money changes hands for those things, people will keep improving items and doing research, even if they can’t then restrict others from benefiting from it also. If I write an amazing program or a fantastic website and someone else wants to copy the look and functionality and thinks they can sell, maintain and run it better than me - then good luck to them!
The only thing that should be protected is a name - so you know from who you are buying something with, say, Sony written on it, that you really are getting the Sony produced version of that product. There would be some details to sort out for novels and news stories, and even performances of songs by another band - they should clearly have an original source attribute.
"If you can make a Ford Fiesta cheaper or better than Ford, then why can’t you? Because Ford came up with the design first?"
No, because Ford spent untold millions on making the design, including simulations, wind-tunnel tests and crash tests. Copying their design gives you immediate commercial advantage cos you haven't had to do all the R&D.
You seem to have heavily confused Patents and Copyright.
My university researches a new type of a silicon manufacturing process and wants to licence it to others: patent law.
We make the Avengers movie and want to stop people distributing it without paying: copyright law.
Pirate Bay is about people getting The Avengers without paying. Not assisting humanity by freeing technological progress. Your post appears to be addressing a patent debate.
"you should be allowed to do your own performance (copying lyrics and notes)"
Have you ever tried to write a song? No? It's not easy thinking up an idea, making words that rhyme, then inventing a tune and arrangement that carries it all.
In your ideal world song writers would never see a dime as you seem to think songs just appear out of nowhere.
Here's a project for you. Come up with a new birthday song. New words and unique tune. When the days turn into weeks and you fail, maybe you'll get a clue of what it takes to invent.
Ascy you have so no hit the nail on the head! I have never seen a more worthwhile comment on these or indeed any other forum.
I would suggest one minor adjustment to your plan. As is pretty well know by everybody almost all of the stuff produced by the major manufacturers is rubbish, cars, electronics, houses etc. Why pay for the product at all. I would suggest that the government should implement totally new policies.
Rather than paying for your new Ford Fiesta, only to find it is total rubbish, what should happen is the company just lend you the product. This would be say a decent 100,000 mile, or 2 - 3 year try before you buy period.
Once your two years, or mileage is up, you can then do one of two things depending on your opinion. Firstly if you think the product was rubbish just drop it back to the supplier (mind with car's they might as well just let you keep it, given it is rubbish and no longer of any value anyway). If the product was OK, then all you do is give the supplier a reasonable charitable donation.
If you think this through it is very workable. It is pretty well known that companies just rip people off anyway, so they then get a realistic price for the product to cover costs, and the increased sales will more than cover the loss of income when people don't like the product (income let's be honest they never deserved anyway).
Also given the charitable nature of donations for products the government can't really charge so much tax, which would just be another major saving to the consumer when the product is paid up.
At the end of the day it is a win - win situation, pretty well nobody loses out apart from a few too highly paid company execs, greedy shareholders, and maybe some tax.
I realise your post was intended to be facetious, but (ironically?) this sort of practice is not unheard of in the car industry. Many car companies these days will allow a prospective client to "borrow" a car for 24-48 hours, drive around, see how it is (peugeot even allow you to take a car home for a weekend here in Australia during certain promotions) and if you're not happy with it, you give it back, no fees, no problems.
Sure, people aren't dictating their own price - but if the idea of "try before you buy" can apply to a product that devalues by ~15% the moment it's driven out of the dealership, why is it so difficult for digital media (which is not subject to wear and tear) to have a similar model? In fact (going back to the car example once again) an Australian manufacturer a couple of years back was giving people cars for a whole month (the Holden Epica IIRC) and allowing them to return the car at the end of it if they weren't satisfied.
Obviously illegal downloads aren't a "right" that people have - but by the same token, the industry has left a large hole for pirates to slip through by effectively ignoring the advantages (from the consumer's perspective at least) of digital distribution for so long.
Allowing people to borrow a car for 24 - 48 hours is a part of the business model of car sales the 15% depreciation cost will be factored into over all business costs. If the car companies didn't do this then the cars would be cheaper.
The problem with this model for media products is that most of the time a consumer will only use a media product once. Having seen the latest and greatest 'Harry Potter' movie most people aren't ever going to repeat the experience. Now then the brave courageous freetard (not sure who posted that one, but I found the whole idea nauseous) who downloads a movie watches it will have then had all there is to offer and won't ever then go on to watch that movie again.
Also these aren't products that are essential for life, nobody forces you to watch films, listen to music, and so on. If you can't, or don't want to pay the price, don't buy the film, music or book. You can argue that the price on release is outrageous but having been released the price will then drop over the next couple of years generally to a point which people can afford.
I list below the arguments of morality for copyright infringement, and their response, that seem to crop up time and time again are -
1. Why pay for stuff when pretty well everything produced is 'rubbish'
Don't pay for it why would you want rubbish anyway?
2. The price charged is outrageous and just goes to support the large media companies, hardly any of the money goes to the creative artist.
But if the evil big media company gets less money they are going to give even less to the original artist.
3. The product isn't available locally
Now then there is a marginal justification here, but again over time this is generally not the case. As mentioned above you aren't going to die, why not wait until it does become available?
4. Everybody is downloading
OK. Now then I do have a car, like a lot of other drivers I also may accidentally break the speed limit, if I get caught I accept that this is illegal. Tell me how you can accidentally download a film?
5. With the Internet it is almost impossible to stop downloads
This may be exactly why the big media companies, and governments are introducing laws to stop downloading. The legal and distribution model may be wrong, but that doesn't make downloading right.
The arguments above do not give any moral imperative for downloading copyright materials. The beatification of TPB in these posts using these arguments is total nonsense. What you are doing is wrong, and at least even if you are going to download stop trying to delude yourself with specious arguments.
Actually, a false fact has been snuck past you hiding in all the dubious logic. Cars don't depreciate by 15% the instant someone tries them out for the day. Can you imagine a car seller accepting 15% loss of the gross sale price because the car had been driven about for less than 48 hours?
You get that sort of depreciation when you *buy* the car. Because people regard a new car from a recognized dealer as safer than buying from a private individual they don't know. But not from a test-drive, not even a 24/48 hour try-out period.
Just a comment on a detail. Agree with your argument.
Hard won rights, that are really useful. What effing planet are you living on?
Either the buffoon who wrote this article is just being a troll and trying to wind people up for his own feeble gratification, or he is indeed a complete idiot.
The "freetards" are not against copyright, they are against the misuse of copyright.
Unlike Mr orlovski I work in the creative industry, I actually create unique works. I expect to have rights to my work. But that does not mean I don't get bloody angry when I see copyright being used as nothing more than a tool to restrict freedom, make money and criminalise ordinary people.
Mr orlovski may be happy to live as sheep in the warm comfort of illusion.
Thankfully there are the "freetards" who bring to light abuses of copyright because they possess a quality Mr orlovski does not - courage.
"The "freetards" are not against copyright, they are against the misuse of copyright."
Okay. Quick test of hypothesis. Which do the patrons of the Pirate Bay most use it for? Distributing copies of books from the 1950's which they feel should now have returned to the public domain, or for obtaining the latest blockbuster, comic or TV show that came out this month?
"Unlike Mr orlovski I work in the creative industry, I actually create unique works. I expect to have rights to my work. But that does not mean I don't get bloody angry when I see copyright being used as nothing more than a tool to restrict freedom, make money and criminalise ordinary people."
And here we have the Appeal to Authority argument: "I am a small content producer". What does that mean? You've published a novel, recorded an album? What about all the "small content producers" who would disagree with you? I know people who publish role-playing games and they have been hit very hard by piracy. Widespread and organized piracy creates a less hospitable environment for content publishers. That is worse for small content producers than for the big ones that can weather the storm more easily. Your post is high on rhetoric and statements that you know best because you're X, but low on logical argument, to me. We should be having a golden age for small content producers and independents with the marketing and reproduction abilities of the Internet and we are to some extent. But lack of copyright enforcement demonstrably hinders that. I suspect we're about to see an argument about how freely distributed work helps raise awareness for the small content producer. To which I make the same response that I always have: if you want to use such a business model, copyright law doesn't stop you. It just gives you a choice whether you want to use that model or not. So if you really think that "not restricting freedom" is a good thing for content producers, then copyright isn't a bad thing because you're not forced to use it.
"Mr orlovski may be happy to live as sheep in the warm comfort of illusion. Thankfully there are the "freetards" who bring to light abuses of copyright because they possess a quality Mr orlovski does not - courage."
I'm finding it an odd juxtaposition how you take such a polite form of address for MR. Orlovski whilst insulting him so personally. Anyone who wants to be praised and told how right they are by people who want to be told taking things for free, can easily do so. Is telling movie downloaders what they want to hear "courage"? Standards have slipped if that's the case. Or you can speak your mind and get called a "sheep living in the warm comfort of illusion" instead. Clearly wanting to be insulted is a sign of moral cowardice in your mind? Or do you have some weird, very weird idea, that criticising copyright law is an act of bravery that defies authority? In which case, well done. I'm sure you have risked the MPAA bashing down your door and beating you up by doing so. Your "courage" is impressive. Because that's totally what happens.
Unlike Mr orlovski I work in the creative industry...
So you don't consider writing part of "the creative industry", then? Which specific "creative industry" are you talking about? Last I knew there were quite a few industries where creative activity (esp. that which benefits from copyright protection) formed the core of the industry.
But that does not mean I don't get bloody angry when I see copyright being used as nothing more than a tool to restrict freedom, make money and criminalise ordinary people.
I think you've lost me there, friend. What can you do with copyright except restrict what others can you do with your material? Even the open source licenses such as GPL use copyright to set down a list of what can and cannot be done with the creative material.
Yes, often that restriction is used to make money, and if we lived in a society which rewarded creative endeavors with goods in kind, that would not be necessary. But we don't live in such a society at this point in time.
As for criminalising ordinary people, the only person who can "criminalise" one is oneself, either through ignorance of or deliberate breaking of applicable law. If you believe the law is unjust, there are various ways in which you can work to change it. If you believe you must break the law*, that is your option as a free individual, but you should expect to face the consequences.
There are many ways to bring to light issues with and abuses of the current copyright system. Breaching copyright should be the method of last resort. I encourage you to speak up, in this forum and in others, enumerating the flaws you see in the current system. We all know it isn't perfect, so simply reiterating that fact adds nothing to the debate.
*Although why anyone feels they need to do so for the type of material on TPB is beyond me -- none of it is necessary for a healthy, happy life, and much of isn't even worth the time needed to download it.
>>"But that does not mean I don't get bloody angry when I see copyright being used as nothing more than a tool to restrict freedom, make money and criminalise ordinary people."
Surely, the whole point of it is to allow people to exploit their own work by very narrowly restricting 'freedom' and giving them a tool to make some money, which they can use (or not) as they wish?
Though of course, the 'freedom' in question (the freedom to selfishly copy other people's work without giving anything in return) isn't one likely to figure on any Declaration of Fundamental Human Rights any time soon.
And it only criminalises 'ordinary people' who choose to break the criminal law by doing things like (in the UK) not merely taking copies of other people's stuff but effectively assisting in the publishing of other people's stuff.
'Ordinary people' is a weasel phrase designed to try and pretend from the outset that the people are by definition doing nothing wrong without actually making a sensible adult argument.
You might as well say that it's wrong to criminalise 'ordinary people' who choose to drive while ignoring the speed limit.
>>"The "freetards" are not against copyright, they are against the misuse of copyright."
'Misuse' typically seems to be something defined quite selfishly by people using their own desires as a yardstick of what is 'right', the way many children might be expected to do.
"hard won rights which benefit the individual, the small firm"
Quite apart from the rest of the argumentation, some of which has worth, I would really go slow on the idea that these are "hard won" rights. Throwing in the "small firm" and the "individual" is a straightforward way of pandering.
Hey, small firm, how about sued of of existence because you came up with the same stuff as someone else? Hey, individual, how about paying an order of magnitude more for stuff that is sold at acceptable prices on the other side of the world but cannot be imported here?
No need to even throw in copying or sharing.
Why would an author write in a no copyright world?
"Ideas and words belong to everyone" claim some folks and lo!, a torrent of torrents.
Writing is however a job (for most). And a job that doesn't pay doesn't get done.
It boils down to two concepts: paying for things is not intrinsically bad and everyone doesn't have a right to everything created by everyone else. Sure, if you can remove greed, envy and the desire for authority from the entire human population, then you might have a stab at creating a genuine form of communism where money and property would be irrelevant and writers would write "just because".
But if you can't then don't wreck other people's livelihoods.
Unfortunately, no-one has a right to a livelihood.The unemployment figures around the [capitalist] are a very sad testament to that fact. Authors, musicians, actors et al are not immune from that.
Usual disclaimer: I do not, and never have, "pirated" anything using the internet. I do not have any means of downloading a torrent, and never have done. I have format-shifted music albums from one form to another after I have paid for it.
"No, because Ford spent untold millions on making the design, including simulations, wind-tunnel tests and crash tests. Copying their design gives you immediate commercial advantage cos you haven't had to do all the R&D."
Further to this, it means of course that Ford (or any other company) would not invest these sums in design and development in the first place, since it would not create any advantage to them because anyone would have equal rights to use their designs.
And so you'd be lucky if mankind had moved much beyond the horse, let alone the Model T.
I would accept that many of the patents now granted are spurious, for ideas which are either obvious, or not sufficiently innovative to be worthy of protection. But to suggest that the concept itself of intellectual property being owned by the creator is wrong, or would create some long term benefit to society if discarded... that is completely deluded.
Given that most of the ideas had already happened before the model T, your argument lacks any basis.
Advancement would always happen (and there's always the theory that it would happen faster).
The idea of the patent was that someone revealed to everyone how something worked in return for a protection for a limited amount of time, just enough to get them established in the market, before everyone else could join. Prior to this, things were always 'commercial secrets', and jealously guarded. Some great ideas probably perished with their inventors becase the knowledge was lost when they died.
Patents were supposed to get around this, which they certainly helped do. Now, however the misuse of them is rife (certainly in things like software, which should never have been patentable in the first place). This is actively slowing down progress massively and at great cost. Which is exactly the opposite of its intent at origin. Which means that it needs to be re-thought to fit in with the world as it is now, not as it was a few hundred years ago..
Part of the deal in anything would be getting time limitations right (software is museum piece at 25 years, a patent term; this is definitely a serious technical abuse of the system).
This post has been deleted by its author
That is the big media stealing the public domain. They have no ethical right to do this, as it was established to enrich culture for everyone, yet through legal technicalities (and outright bribery), they establish a legal bastion to do exactly this.
Everyone is being deprived of what, not long ago was a fully legal right after a timespan.
Now the deal is being changed in a way too heavy handed way.
For example, you agree to pay something, and the vendor says "We'll have it there in a reasonable time. We expect 3 working days". You shell out your money, and you're happy. The system works.
Then a series of vendors get together, and get a legal argument together and say "Well, actually, your goods won't be delivered to you until next month, as we now have a piece of legislation that says that's reasonable".. Then next month they say "Next year, as that's reasonable". Then you get the message next year "Well, technically, infinity years minus one is reasonable as a technical legal definition, therefore you'll never get your goods. No you're not allowed to change your end of the deal".
Very rough analogy, and I know there are legal ramifications to trying to pull that particular stunt, but this is the kind of trick they're trying to play. We've funded their businesses since copyright was created, a few hundred years ago (and of course, before this, by their argument, nobody would ever have created art would they, without protection of Copyright?) under a basic deal. Someone created a work, and for about 12 years, they could do what they wanted with it. It took most of that time for it to travel across the world! So, effectively, you controlled the work until everyone had bought it, and had a chance to buy it under your deal (set price etc) and nobody was allowed to copy it until it was firmly established in the mind of the populace that it was you who created it.
Now, however, with the erosion of the public domain, it's somehow acceptable for a business entity to control this in perpetuity, always controlling how, or even if, a work is available to anyone, allowing selective culling of culture at a whim, and allowing social engineering on a massive scale. Also for attempts to criminalise and control people who 'bend the rules' (I'm all for taking out commercial pirates, but it rankles to have the big brother eye cast over every single person; the law was never created with this level of control in mind).
What we have now is NOT a fair deal. The original one was, at its time, in its context.
So, when the deal is changed, and you have no control over that, and are told to just sit there and take it, people have no clue as to why some people no longer regard that deal as valid, and ignore it?
Everything is a balance, not black and white. This article paints copyright as black and white, which misses the entire point (spurious logic; base an argument on a false premise, and treat the premise as axiomatic, then hope that nobody spots the flaw isn't in the progressive argument, it's in the base premise, in this case that copyright is a fair deal that should be obeyed).
Copyright is no longer balanced. It certainly isn't fair anymore. If one side chooses not to play fair, why should the other?
Your entire post is basically about copyright terms. If you want to argue that copyright terms are too long, go ahead - you'll actually find many people agreeing with you. But tell me which of the top 22 video results on The Pirate Bay (checked just now) are about people protesting copyright terms:
How I Spent My Summer Vacation HDTV XViD.AC3-ART3MiS
21 Jump Street 2012 R5 NEW LiNE XViD - INSPiRAL
This Means War 2012 DVDRip XviD-SPARKS
The Avengers 2012 CAM V2 XViD-26K
Sherlock Holmes A Game of Shadows (2011) DVDRip XviD-MAX
Mission Impossible 4 Ghost Protocol (2011) DVDRip
Gone[2012]BRRip XviD-ETRG
Chronicle 2012 DVDRip XviD-SPARKS
Treasure Island 2012 DVDRip XviD-EXViD
The Avengers 2012 HDCAM NEW XviD-HOPE
Coriolanus[2011] LiMiTED BRRip XviD-ETRG
Thor (2011) DVDRip XviD-MAX
Captain America The First Avenger (2011) DVDRip XviD-MAX
We Bought a Zoo 2011 DVDRip XviD-NeDiVx
American Pie Reunion 2012 TS XVID V3 - WBZ
The Grey (2012) DVDRip XviD-MAX
Contraband.2012.DVDRip.XViD-NYDIC
Red.Tails.2012.DVDRip.XviD- SPARKS
Man on a Ledge 2012 PROPER DVDRip XviD-SPARKS
Haywire[2011]BRRip XviD-ETRG
The Hunger Games 2012 TS READNFO XViD-sC0rp
The Girl With A Dragon Tattoo 2011 DVDSCR XviD AC3-FTW
If you want to argue that works from twenty years ago should now return to the public domain, we can have that debate. But please do not imply that it is relevant to what the overwhelming majority are actually doing with piracy - that's just a post-fact attempt at justification.
@h4rm0ny
Nice post, although I do take issue with the use of the word "piracy" but that's just semantics.
I see Avengers 2012 on that list - can you please tell me how much that affected the box-office take? Because if I remember, it just broke lots of records.
Obviously that does not excuse copyright infringement one little bit, but it does bring into question just how much damage (if any) is actually being done.
I don't necessarily agree with TPB (although as a distribution service it is genius) but neither to I agree with the draconian legislation being mooted and forced through.
Infringement has almost certainly always existed once it became technologically possible (and no, that does not make it right) but what harm has actually been caused? Companies have survived and grown from gramaphones thru LPs to tapes, videos, CDs etc and not a lot seems to have gone wrong. Heck, maybe the infringement was even a boon to some. So despite it having been around for so long and companies/people still raking it in, why should we let them make such an audacious grab for culture with ever increasing terms, region-locks (WTF did those ever do other than force people to infringe?), DRM (as before), and new laws?
I often wonder what history has to say about all this - what happened when the printing press landed and all the scribes' jobs were in danger; did they demand legislation/special treatment to protect their business? It's the closest equivalent I can think of.
"Nice post, although I do take issue with the use of the word "piracy" but that's just semantics."
Thank you. I also dislike the use of the term "piracy", though mainly because it makes copyright infringement sounds a lot more glamourous and romantic than it is. But if the Pirate Bay want to call themselves that, then they can. It's the term that everyone uses and unlike metric megabytes, etc. there's not a solid reason to argue against it... But anyway, on to the debate! :)
"I see Avengers 2012 on that list - can you please tell me how much that affected the box-office take? Because if I remember, it just broke lots of records."
I cannot tell you precisely how much it was impacted. Probably no-one can give a truly accurate figure. All it is reasonable to conclude is that it has been impacted to some degree. The guy I went to see it with commented that "I'm actually going to see this one at the Cinema" meaning the film was so good that he actually wanted the full experience rather than just downloading and watching on the computer. So maybe you should ask how less successful films are impacted, rather than just the biggest, most special-effects laden films. Unless you think only the biggest Studios and budgets should suffer less? If not, ask about the impact on other films. I remember trying to round up some people for a flim last year and most couldn't because they said they would just download it. If you're saying you wont believe that cinemas are impacted unless someone can give you a figure to the percentage point, you'll never believe it. I could dig out some figures but as the people who are best positioned to know this (the cinemas and the studios) would immediately be dismissed by biased people as biased (ironic), it wouldn't be accepted. Besides cinema takings are only a part of it because cinema gives you something that actually is different to what you download. DVD and Blu-ray sales are a very different matter because in this case, piracy actually can replace the purchase entirely. Some might argue that more people will buy the DVD because more have seen it online. The idea that people who avoided paying for it once will suddenly want to pay for it when they don't have to a second time, is pretty dubious, imo.
"Obviously that does not excuse copyright infringement one little bit, but it does bring into question just how much damage (if any) is actually being done."
I think the worst damage is done to Independents. The bigger you are, the more you can weather adverse conditions. But it varies by media. For example, I know some small press groups publishing role-playing games who basically don't even find it profitable to publish anymore because of piracy.
The question of how much damage is being done goes beyond the profits of the content producers. This goes back to my first post in which I pointed out that most of the pro-piracy arguments all suppose this a priori content producing entity and see the equation as Industry Money on one side and Public Mony on the other. This is plainly and obviously false. The industry money is wholely derived from public money - specifically from those willing to buy the content. Do pro-piracy advocates honestly think that if they push on one side of the industry, those supporting it on the other side don't feel that push? Do they think that the content publishers are this infinitely squeezable sponge that can be reduced to a profitless sliver of nothing? I honestly think they do. Rather than it being slightly firmer stuff that if pushed by piracy on one side, passes on that pressure to the purchasers of the content. And even it it were squashed to nothing and no studio made profit from any film and all the people involved magically worked for free, you'd STILL have the situation in which one large group of people were fronting all the money for these films and novels and songs, whilst another segment of society lived off the first and gave nothing back. That's the reality of the economics. You disliked the word piracy, as did I. Freeloader is the term that I actually prefer. It is, naturally, shunned in favour of pirate by those who support the activity of course. Yet freeloader is more accurate.
"I don't necessarily agree with TPB (although as a distribution service it is genius) but neither to I agree with the draconian legislation being mooted and forced through."
And this is one of my objections to them also. The activities of the Pirate Bay et al. make it very hard for the rest of us to oppose increasing monitoring and restrictions on the Internet. One day, we will urgently need those freedoms again, even in the West. And yet by persistent, wide-spread crime, the freeloaders have justified the taking away of those freedoms. Governments are by nature, evil things. They must, because of what they are, always seek control. But that control doesn't just appear. It is enabled by things such as complaints of content producers asking for such control. And it is a legitimate request for protection they make. So yes, it's not just that some are living off the honesty of others (and to greater or lesser extent passing the costs along through their unwillingness to share that cost), but that I see the erosion of anonymity and privacy accellerated because of them.
"Infringement has almost certainly always existed once it became technologically possible (and no, that does not make it right) but what harm has actually been caused? Companies have survived and grown from gramaphones thru LPs to tapes, videos, CDs etc and not a lot seems to have gone wrong."
Well as I said, I know people who can no longer make money doing something they love because of piracy. There's definite harm. There's also the dubious science of comparing our timeline with itself and saying: "what harm has been done". Well we cannot know that. But there's also the worse logic of thinking because something has been this way before, it will always be this way. Despite human history being full of game changers. Has there ever been a system by which anyone in the world can casually communicate with anyone else before? Has it ever been the case before that content could be reproduced and distributed with costs so small per unit that people aren't even aware of the cost per unit? Has it ever been the case before that decentralized, automated organizational systems for the requesting and delivery of content without a central actor was possible? No, none of these things. And each one is huge. And you bring forth the argument that 'it's always been that way, it always will'. The Internet is a huge blessing for small content producers. But piracy is not an intrinsic part of that blessing. It's the worm in the tequilla. (Some people will swallow that worm. Rational people have more sense.)
"I often wonder what history has to say about all this - what happened when the printing press landed and all the scribes' jobs were in danger; did they demand legislation/special treatment to protect their business? It's the closest equivalent I can think of."
Yes, entrenched producers always resisted change. The medieval guilds held back development for a long time. But your analogy is flawed. The content producers are HAPPY to lay off the scribes (plastic discs as a distribution method, post and packing, guestimating demand), just as they were happy when the "scribes" were cassette tapes being replaced with CDs. The flaw in your analogy is that it is not the scribes people are not wanting to pay for (e.g. the medium), but the content. People still want the content that the producers sell. They have just found a way to not pay for it.
Copyright (and to a very large extents, patents) were about giving the original creator a window of a opportunity to make money off their creation/invetion (either by direct sales or some kind of licensing). The copyright/patents were all geared around the idea of a creator.
Now big business is trying to re-gear it all around a corporation. Corporations don't die and are inhuman. Thus they demand ever increasing terms and ever more restrictive laws to "protect their investment".
What about protecting human culture?
Exactly - I don't thnk anyone but a small minority disagree totally with some idea of copyright. But the time period is everything. These days, 5 years is a long time - I don't know the figures, but the majority of the revenue from a work must be earned in a short time after release.
Also there's a lot of rubbish that only makes money because of large sums invested in marketing - in that case who's the real creative? The guy who made the crap film or record, or the guy who wrote the ad that turned it into shit that made money?
A lot of stuff from pro-status-quo journos seems to presuppose some creative nirvana where money made is proportional to the artists ability, & the artist receives a large share of the profits.
So many have been ripped off over the years - e.g. a significant number of US pop artists from the 50's & 60's were simply robbed of their rights to multi-million sellers at the point of a gun by members of the Mafia, but of course, the normal tools used are contracts & lawyers.
The only way to ever combat file-sharing is to reform the system so that its fairer for all, so that it becomes a small minority thing. Northern Ireland is a good analogy I think - at the moment its still the metaphorical late 70's as far as the MPAA et al ar concerned
The Anti-Piracy Orbital Super Laser, or APOSL, would target pirates by tracking their IP and either destroy the whole house, or the computer, depending on the level of piracy. This simple scale will explain what causes what:
Conspiracy to Attempt Piracy - The Computer
Attempted Piracy - The Room
Pirating 3 minutes of media - The House
Anything else - The House and Tour bank account
This system will eliminate the need for sueing people into oblivion, rather the APOSL would zap them into oblivion. Of course the well prepped basement warrior will build his basement under ground(no shit!) which will mean the APOSL will need to be powered directly by the sun.
Using napkin math, I predict a build time of 27 years at a cost of $34 trillion dollars, but we'll make that money back from all of the pirates that will be stopped because of the system.
Yours is a great idea, but the costs are too high.
What they should be doing is this: equip every human being in the planet with an explosive necklace, of the kind usually seen in cheap SF prison movies. The necklace could be fitted with technology for detecting IP infringement and allow the local government to remotely remove the infringing subjects through surgical -but noisy- strikes . The necklace could also track and/or eliminate political dissidents and protesters, who, as is widely known, always end up becoming terrorists.
TPB gets it's panties in a bundle over being copied. Yes, that is hypocritical.
Andrew gets hit panties in a bundle over TPB allegedly attacking sites and deleting content, but isn't that what the authorities do to the likes of MegaUpload? Actions that Andrew supports. Isn't that also hypocritical?
The copyright laws are way, way out of control. The stranglehold corporations wish to get on human culture is simply beyond the pale. Sites like TPB are not really an answer (although the tech they use is certainly a boon), but neither are increasingly draconian laws which restrict culture.
Andrew gets hit panties in a bundle over TPB allegedly attacking sites and deleting content,
Yes, I suppose you could describe his reaction that way -- although it may be a form of thought crime to refer to Andrew Orlowski and panties in a possessive manner...
but isn't that what the authorities do to the likes of MegaUpload?
Ummm....no. The authorities took MegaUpload through a very different mechanism. The technical term is "legal action". I won't go into the details, but look it up sometime. It's a fascinating topic. Furthermore they didn't delete any content. There were some concerns that content would be lost as a side-effect of that legal action, but as far as I know, those concerns have for the most part been answered.
Actions that Andrew supports. Isn't that also hypocritical?
It would be, if an illegal action by a non-authoritative entity is considered the same thing as an act of law enforcement supported by authority. Is that how you see the world?
If you're going to sacrifice your reputation as a useful and accurate source of news in exchange for a few cheap and immature laughs then you'd better make sure that what you're writing is actually funny. If I want immature drivel I'll listen to Chris Moyles instead, thanks.
If we base the law on the random opinion of anonymous internet folk then you're 100% right. If we base it on facts, your argument starts to fall down. Unless websites make "don't deliberately block ads" a part of their T&Cs, that is. But even that would only partially reduce the stupidity of your argument..
Drivel
if someone downloads a film they have not agreed to any terms that say they shouldn't do it. so if T&C's are required your argument is nonsense. what's more they don't cost the films creator anything. If you use an adblocker you steal bandwidth and server load.
I don't think you should be calling anyone stupid unless your own arguments hold water.
>>"if someone downloads a film they have not agreed to any terms that say they shouldn't do it. so if T&C's are required your argument is nonsense."
If there are general laws saying 'It's against the law to help in the provision of copyright content' and someone breaks the law, the absence of any specific terms and conditions is.
Effectively, the 'standard legal terms and conditions' are already widely known, just as they are in the case of other illegal activity.
As for the website, there is no law saying people aren't allowed to use ad-blockers, and a website which wished to restrict access to only allow people who were not blocking ads could do so with relative technical ease, if they believed that doing so would actually profit them.
The intention of an advert is generally not to sell you a product, even if it appears to be advertising one. The intention is to make the brand visible, and assosiate it with the product. So that when you want a netbook, the word Samsung pops into your head, because you have seen samsung next to netbooks out of the corner of your eye many times.
You do not have to read the ad for it to sink in. I know the ad on the right is for microsoft, even though I haven't looked close enough to see what product it is for. It has a man in a suit. He looks responsible in a rugged sort of way. Look at his confident expression. Your brain recognises symbols (the MS logo), human charecteristics, and colour, without concius thought. Thinking buisness? Think microsoft.
Nintendo spend twice as much on advertising as they do on development (software and hardware). Why?
Because price is set by Supply and Demand. R&D creates supply, and Advertising creates demand, it directly effects the price you can charge for the product. We have no way of knowing a true price for most things we buy, which is really better out of 2 similar spec laptops. But we will pay twice as much for Microsoft hosted office web app compared to some nobrands feature matched web app. Because we care about uptime. Because Microsoft means buisness. Because the guy in a suit looks like he means buisness, even if we never really noticed him.
"How is using an adblocker stealing?"
Millions of people have been using your same rationale for years, but the entertainment industry has been claiming for those same years that any technology that allows people to skip television commercials (either live or recorded) is tantamount to theft, because they see the product without the advertising meant to help pay for it. The rationale works the same with website advertising. Heck, the industry has even claimed that even muting your TV during commercials is theft.
I've stated before that my use of The Pirate Bay, or similar sites, is to download television programs that I already pay my local cable company for the right to view, rather than watch them at the broadcast time. I'm repeatedly told that I still count as stealing, because the downloaded programs don't contain the commercials.
Evidently I'm also a thief because I spoof my IT address in order to watch YouTube videos for music that the entertainment industry doesn't want to sell in my country in the first place.
I find this thread amusing,
"how is using an ad blocker stealing?"
Quite simple, the IP of a website is often paid for in part by advertising, and as such by blocking that advertising you are not paying for the IP you are also not paying for the cpu time you're using and the bandwidth you are using. So you are stealing.
But it's worse. You see often you go back and steal from the same site again and again and again, denying the creators of that site and those that provide for it their just rewards. While a person only steals a movie once and generally a movie they'd never have paid for in the first place.
It is quite clearly theft, you're enjoying a service without the ads that help pay for its creation and maintenance.
While at the same time arguing that downloading a movie is theft and being ignorant to your own repeated theft.
I find it quite funny. You deny the right of web site owners from earning money for their property but at the same time support the "entertainment" industries rights to earn money from their properties.
Again I ask, how am I stealing if I choose not to look at adds in a news paper?
I have eyes, and I can choose to use them. If I choose not to load up an add, it's the same choice.
How is that stealing? If they insist on a pay per view, they should be honest about this an put up a pay wall.
If they want an honour system, they should be honest about this too. I pay for the Humble Bundle etc, even though they are DRM free. So I don't steal.
I could decide my posts cost 1 million dollars for anyone who wishes to read them. If they refuse to pay, have they stolen from me?
Interesting what you say about CPU / bandwidth. Rich media are using unasked for CPU on my machine, and bandwidth out of what I pay for (I'll avoid net neutrality culs-de-sac here). So a quid pro quo is arguable on that aspect. Indeed if someone's machine is being used to contribute to running e.g. some massive calculation / simulation, the advertiser is effectively stealing from the academic / charitable organisation.
The additional irony is that by pointing out the irony that the Pirate Bay's problem could have been reduced if there were a strong copyright system, Orlowski has dramatically raised public awareness of the risk and thus reduced the impact of the issue by more than any copyright system could have managed, so by espousing strong copyright systems he reduces the need for them.
Good going.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
