LONG LIVE.....
THE BAY.
But watch out in case u get a 'letter from America' and a trip on the EXTRADITION EXPRESS, flying twice weekly from an airfield close to you, to destinations all over the world.
As we all know rendition does not exist.
Pirate Bay dropping torrents after magnetic attraction
The Pirate Bay has announced that it is dropping torrent files in favor of magnet links to keep up with current trends. “Magnet is now default, Download torrent is now where the magnet links used to be,’ said the group said on its blog. “The reason is the same as always: Magnets are now good enough to use, and it's not as easy …
-
-
Saturday 14th January 2012 03:05 GMT Turtle
Just wondering.
I am just wondering, whether it is the case that you like the Pirate Bay specifically because you support neo-nazism and the neo-nazi who funds it, or if you are against neo-nazism but find that getting stuff for free is more important. Or is it the case that you are simply indifferent to neo-nazi agenda?
-
-
-
Saturday 14th January 2012 14:05 GMT PyLETS
@AC 14th January 2012 08:40 GMT
"you want for free without paying"
That presumes a. a consensus over b. the existence and c. enforcement of a kind of property none of which exists.
The undemocratic laws which establish this property right are clearly contentious and contended. Not so much in the sense this kind of property may exist, but in the sense of its highly contentious extent and means of enforcement.
Why undemocratic ? Because until the formation of political Pirate Parties, big media (which if you've been following the news recently helps us decide who gets elected) have decided there is only 1 side to this argument - their side, and you need to look elsewhere to find the other side.
-
Saturday 14th January 2012 21:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
Alright, why is it so hard to understand?
Some people invested considerable time, effort, skill, and probably money as well, in creating something. They would like to receive some recompense for all that. Now you could argue that what they created was crap, in which case cool: don't listen/watch/consume it.
Otherwise cough up.
-
Sunday 15th January 2012 02:16 GMT Homer 1
The bogus "hard work" argument
Last Sunday I went to B&Q and "invested" a shed-load of money on lots of tools and materials for my garden, then I came home and engaged in hours of "hard work" in my garden.
During the course of the day several passers-by admired my garden, for free!
So where's my Goddamn money?
I demand to be paid for all my "hard work" and "investment".
Gaddamn "freetards".
-
-
-
Monday 16th January 2012 00:08 GMT Anonymous Coward
How many times do we have to point this out?
Except, of course, that you are referring to theft. His neighbour has deprived him of physical items, whilst downloading something is usually a breach of copyright and involves no theft. If you're going to criticise someone's analogy, you could at least illustrate your point with a valid one yourself.
-
Monday 16th January 2012 12:05 GMT Phil O'Sophical
Theft
The repeated comments here that it isn't theft because making a copy doesn't deprive the owner of the original are disingenuous. The situation is called *copy*right not because it affects the original, but because it affects the right to make copies of that original. It is theft of those copies which is at issue.
When a band plays a song live at a concert, it is clear that no amount of copying of that performance is going to detract from the experience of those who paid to see it live. The original has indeed arguably lost nothing.
However, copyright allows the band to make THEIR OWN COPIES of that performance, and to distribute them for money. The availability of unauthorized copies will obviously reduce the number of copies that the band will sell, and could depress the price of those copies. In that sense it is very much theft, since making 500 unauthorized copies and selling them yourself is the same as breaking into the band's warehouse and stealing 500 legitimate copies to sell. Just because there are a potentially unlimited number of copies avaiable doesn't make stealing them less of a crime.
There is the argument that someone who takes a pirate copy isn't necessarily someone who would have bought a legitimate copy, so the losses cannot be equated to 100% of the unauthorized copies. That is true, but it is equally true that *some* of those pirate copies will correspond to a lost sale of a legitimate copy, so the loss is not 0% either.
-
Monday 16th January 2012 12:16 GMT Vic
> The repeated comments here that it isn't theft because making a copy
> doesn't deprive the owner of the original are disingenuous
Not so. They are a statement of the law[1] as it stands.
> The situation is called *copy*right
Indeed it is. Note that the word "copyright" doesn't include the word "theft" or even "property" at any point. So focussing on what it is - the right to determine which copies are made - doesn't actually help your proposal that theft is involved in any way in making unauthorised copies.
Really - check up on what the law says, rather than pontificating on what you'd like it to say.
Vic.
[1] This is specifically UK law I'm speaking about. I believe the US law says something very similar, but my expertise in that jurisdiction is significantly less.
-
-
Monday 16th January 2012 13:01 GMT Vic
> And perhaps you'd care to look up "disingenuous" ?
I know what the word means. I am very carefully and deliberately making the statement that copyright infringement is not theft - which is a true statement - whilst simultaneously *not* making the statement that copyright infringement is acceptable - which would be an untrue statement.
This is not disingenuous; it is a statement of fact, and it is important because it has a significant effect both on the hyperbole of the pro-enforcement camp and on the position that politicians[1] will be backed into if we accept the untruth.
There is an attempt here to declare property rights when none exist. That is a line that must not be crossed.
Vic.
[1] We all know that pols have a tendency to react without thinking[2]. Giving them false premises upon which to hang their prejudices is just going to be awful.
[2] Just look at the support SOPA is getting in some areas: SOPA is a clear dereliction of due process, yet the pols think they're protecting the world...
-
Monday 16th January 2012 13:15 GMT DragonLord
(The opinions below are mine, and purely conjecture)
I believe that the reason that copyright infringement and theft are deliberately conflated by interested parties is that the word steal can be used for both ideas and physical items in a tense that means that you have taken them from their rightful owner. (Dictionaries back me up on that one)
In academic circles this is called plagiarism, in the physical world it's called theft, in the artistic world it's copyright infringement, and in the engineering (and bleeding over to artistic/business) world it's called patent infringement.
They all describe a situation where someone has obtained something that is legally yours without your permission (which may include a fee), and either profited (not necessarily in a monetary fashion) from it, or kept it for themselves. So the act of taking the copy is directly comparable in the English language to taking a CD from a shop, it's the consequences that differ (as many people have pointed out, stealing a physical item results in the original owner being down 1 item, while stealing a copy results in the original owner still having their own copy)
-
Monday 16th January 2012 15:17 GMT Phil O'Sophical
@Vic
"I am very carefully and deliberately making the statement that copyright infringement is not theft - which is a true statement"
I disagree. Your statement would only be true if the value of a copy did not depend on the number of copies that exist, which is rarely the case. In practice, making an unauthorized copy will reduce the value of authorized copies, or will reduce the market for sales of authorized copies.
In practice there is no difference between making an unauthorized copy of something, and stealing an authorized copy, the net effect is the same. Both are theft of property.
-
Monday 16th January 2012 16:39 GMT Vic
> I disagree.
Under UK law, theft is defined in the Theft Act 1968. Go and read it. You will find that you are simply wrong. Repeating the same fallacy does not correct that.
I'm not making up the definition; it's the one used by law. So it doesn't really matter how many provisos you can make up, you're not changing the definition laid down in the Act. And the Act says that copyright infringement is not theft.
Vic.
-
Monday 16th January 2012 17:44 GMT Phil O'Sophical
> Under UK law, theft is defined in the Theft Act 1968. Go and read it. You will find that you are simply wrong.
OK, I've read it, and I still disagree. Some excerpts:
---
A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it
Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation,
“Property” includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.
Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest
A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights
---
It is clear that usurping someones right to make copies of their work, with the intention of treating such a copy as if it were your own, amounts to theft.
-
Tuesday 17th January 2012 03:13 GMT Anonymous Coward
Trying one last time
Two definitions in your excerpt:
- appropriation
- property
Now, these 2 words fit in the first sentence, which is the encompassing definition of theft. This sentence also includes the words "permanently depriving".
This is were copyright is not theft (or piracy or terrorism or assault.) There is a reason there are 2 (very) different words for 2 (very) different actions: Here, the original owner is not "permanently deprived" of the property. He still has it after the infrigement, unlike say a stolen car.
Not to say infringing is legal of course, but it is not theft or rape or murder. It is what it is.
This is what words are for: convey a precise meaning. Is that so hard?
-
Tuesday 17th January 2012 09:23 GMT Anonymous Coward
precise meanings...
>This is what words are for: convey a precise meaning. Is that so hard?
No, and if you read the act you'll see that (as was posted) there are clear definitions of those two words:
appropriation: Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation
and
property: “Property” includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other INTANGIBLE PROPERTY. [my emphasis].
As far as "permanently deprived" is concerned, the act goes on to say:
"A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights.
--
Your personal *interpretation* may differ, but this is what an Act of Parliament is for, to convey a precise definition of the law. Is that so hard?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Monday 16th January 2012 00:08 GMT Cheshire Cat
Not really - since I think the original poster was making the point that, once the fictional Neighbours had filled their eyes, he had lost nothing. With your physical vegetables, the garden-owner would no longer have the vegetables.
A more accurate analogy may be that, having invested time and effort in making your garden beautiful, do you want people to treat it is a public park? Are you justified in charging for admission? Are you justified in charging people who enter without paying with tresspass?
So much of the copyright debate is muddied by one side equating copying with stealing a physical object (it isnt) and the other claiming that a film/book/recording should be free to copy as it costs nothing to do so (conveniently forgetting initial production costs).
-
Monday 16th January 2012 02:09 GMT garbo
Better analogy...
The hard work and expense created a garden beautiful to the eye.
Neighbours came and took photos - they copied the beautiful sight.
Should they pay for their _copy_ of the beautiful sight.?
No, if they keep their copy on the mantle piece at home.
Yes, if they sell the photos for a profit.
HTH
-
Monday 16th January 2012 12:42 GMT Shakje
The garden analogy
Both sides seem to have missed the point. On the one hand, taking physical items really is theft, it's not the same at all. This should be utterly obvious to anyone who can be bothered to actually think about it for a moment. On the other hand, the analogy of letting people see your garden isn't accurate either, because there's no loss incurred whatsoever.
It's far more like you spending ages preening your garden and making it look lovely, and then charging a tenner for people to wander around and look at it. If someone then visits your garden, and makes an absolutely perfect replica of it somewhere else and lets people visit for free, that's more in the ballpark. People who might have visited your garden decide it's easier to go to the free one instead, or that it's just too expensive to visit yours.
The difficulty is that this is a very simplistic view of human behaviour, in reality people might decide that they want to view your garden because it's the original. Or that they want to pay to view yours because they feel guilty about just looking at it for free. Or they decide to pay to visit your other gardens because of the experience of the free one. That is a little closer to the truth of it. Then imagine that with every person who visits your garden they also get far better service, they're taken around in a golf cart by you, explaining every inch of it, so the experience is actually better, but not everyone places that high a value on the experience (I would equate that to buying a physical album with box art etc.).
Let's also say that in order to stamp out these other gardens you screened a large presentation to the people who DID pay to go to yours all about how the other gardens were hurting yours before letting them in, and then you randomly picked some of them and threatened to hunt them down for stealing your ideas.
It's not a clear-cut argument either way, whatever some people would like to think (people who are on the freetard side who think it is tend to be doing so to justify their own actions, and those opposing it tend to like the idea that they are morally superior to someone), and that's why important questions about the way that music is distributed and the way that copyright law works have to be answered, rather than just taking one viewpoint and arguing it until you're blue in the face. I download things, as I've said before, and I don't do it that often. 90% of the things I download are things that I wouldn't pay money for (either I can't really afford it, or it's not something I would consider buying. Say about 40% of that I buy at a later date when things change (i.e. I can afford it, or I realise it's worth it after all), mostly because I like physical goods. The other 10% are things that I intend to buy, but want sooner, and there's no digital distribution service for them available, and usually I buy all of these things eventually. I accept that what I'm doing is technically wrong, but by doing this I really do buy more things at the end of the day.
So can we all just grow up a bit, and admit that it's a fuzzy issue, instead of trying to be all tabloid about it?
-
-
Monday 16th January 2012 20:18 GMT sisk
Re: John 174
That analogy is just as incorrect as the one of someone admiring the garden.
The original analogy is incorrect because in that case the gardener is working the garden for his own benefit, not for the entertainment of others. Now if he built a wall around it and charged admittance at the gate and people climbed over the wall instead of paying, then the analogy would be correct.
Your analogy is incorrect because there's a clear difference between copyright infringement and theft, despite what big media would have us think. In your analogy, something is lost by the gardener and therefore theft has occured, but in file sharing nothing is actually lost. Many people have tried to claim lost sales, but that doesn't really stand up to scrutiny, unless you think that a 16 year old kid is going to go out and buy several thousand dollars worth of music. Which is not to say that it's not still wrong, but it is NOT theft.
-
-
Monday 16th January 2012 12:29 GMT Patorian
If you want money from people to see your garden, you should build a wall around it and ask an entrance fee for people to come in and look at it. Exactly as the music industry does (but they call it copyright and DRM and such) ...
The "get all stuff there is for free" argument is what is bogus : you didn't take the tools & materials to do your gardening without paying now did you ? So, what is the difference to you then ?
-
-
-
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
Saturday 14th January 2012 09:11 GMT FrankAlphaXII
Watch out Freetard, the CIA's watching you masturbate
Unless your torrent's blowing up buildings or shooting at people, I dont think you're getting rendered or extradited. You might get prosecuted in your home country though and if I was you id worry about that a whole lot more than what the US will do to you.
Lay off the paranoid sauce there guy.
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Friday 13th January 2012 22:52 GMT Ogi
Old is new again...
Who here remembers the days of gnutella, gnutella2 and the Donkey network, where the same concept was used (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed2k_URI_scheme for more info).
I always thought bittorrent went somewhat backwards with requiring central management and tracking via the torrent files. Nice to see that now we'll have both the benefits of bittorrent with the distributed nature of the old P2P networks.
Perhaps next it's time to develop a distributed search system, so you don't even need to host a website with the links (as I'm sure they'll try to shut you down and extradite you for running it, no matter how much you point out you're doing the same a google). Then we would've really gone full circle :-)
-
Saturday 14th January 2012 12:27 GMT Charles 9
I believe they've tried.
Both Overnet and Kadmelia (Serverless variants of EDonkey and EMule, respectively) are completely serverless and rely on other clients to establish a mesh by which one can funnel search requests and the like. The trick is that this decentralized nature inevitably has hiccups. People may not be on all the time, breaking parts of the mesh. Meanwhile, searches have to be bounced through node after node, taking time.
-
Monday 16th January 2012 13:26 GMT Drew V.
I agree that bittorrent was a step backwards in terms of decentralization. The speeds it offered were just too good to pass up, though.
It is worth pointing out, however, that Emule's Kademlia has essentially succeeded, powering virtually the entire Emule network with a million users on it every day, offering a billion different files. Not as many users nor files as during the heydays, sure, but this is another consequence of bittorrent's success.
And Emule continues to be superior to torrents for finding rare, obscure files. I can still find files on it that are 10 years old - not just the same content but the same exact files - good luck doing that with all but the most popular torrent files, which more likely will have been abandoned by their seeds ages ago.
-
-
Saturday 14th January 2012 16:20 GMT David Hicks
Bittorrent not necessarily designed for this
The protocol was just designed as a way to distribute stuff fast and without straining the bandwidth of the originator too much.
It's become a cliche to talk about linux ISOs in relation to bittorrent, but this really was the targeted use-case - allow organisations like linux distro-makers to distribute disc images to many, many people without having to pay for the associated bandwidth, as the downloaders distribute to each other.
I won't disagree - it did always seem odd to me that it took off for P2P, when it requires a tracker - but that's more to do with the folks adopting it than the design.
-
-
-
Saturday 14th January 2012 04:34 GMT Homer 1
Dream on "anon"
Oh look, a member of the "Federation Against Copyright Theft" dropped in for a chat!
OK, let's talk about how F.A.C.T.'s very NAME is actually a lie, since the law does not in fact define copyright infringement as theft. No but seriously, look it up. Copyright infringement is NOT theft, and doesn't even assume any sort of loss. "Losses and damages, if any" (as my learned friend might say) must be demonstrated to the court, and are not presumed by the mere establishment of copyright infringement.
So please change the deceptive name of your organisation, and stop lying. That goes for your "You wouldn't download a car" crap too. No, I wouldn't steal a car, but then I wouldn't BE stealing a car if I could somehow download it, because downloading isn't theft either.
Confused?
Maybe this song will help:
Copying is not theft. Stealing a thing leaves one less left
Copying it makes one thing more; that's what copying's for.
Copying is not theft. If I copy yours you have it too
One for me and one for you. That's what copies can do
If I steal your bicycle you have to take the bus,
but if I just copy it there's one for each of us!
Making more of a thing, that is what we call "copying"
Sharing ideas with everyone. That's why copying is FUN!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4
-
Saturday 14th January 2012 09:11 GMT Anonymous Coward
Tbh "The Pirate Bay"'s name is also a lie, innit? The law in fact defines piracy as an act of robbery or criminal violence at sea. No but seriously, look it up.
So please change the deceptive name of _your_ organisation, and stop lying.
Confused?
Maybe this song will help:
Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me.
We pillage plunder, we rifle and loot.
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.
We kidnap and ravage and don't give a hoot.
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.
Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me.
We extort and pilfer, we filch and sack.
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.
Maraud and embezzle and even highjack.
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.
-
-
-
-
Monday 16th January 2012 17:59 GMT Anonymous Coward
@Andrew Norton
There are other fair use qualifications - non-commercial use, excerpting, intent, etc. I'm not a lawyer, but afaik there aren't hard and fast rules saying, "This vannot be fair use because it does not fit these categories", but it -must- be fair use if it -does-. There is a near-zero chance that the post would be considered infringement here.
Hyperbole is fun (particularly when used to attack another country one dislikes, it seems) but in a discussion about an area where truth is stranger, and sadder, than fiction, exercising exaggeration to make a political point only muddies the waters.
Now, where's the required, "Haha I copywrite air, now you can't breathe LOL" post? I seem to have missed it..
-
-
-
Saturday 14th January 2012 13:15 GMT EyeCU
@AC09:11
I think you will find that it was the 'entertainment' industries that attached the name pirate to copyright infringers to make it sound worse than it actually is going right back to the days of 'pirate' radio as they operated from ships where the law couldn't touch them. This has now backfired on them as the moniker has been adopted with pride.
-
Monday 16th January 2012 10:42 GMT David Cantrell
It was not the entertainment industries that "attached the name pirate to copyright infringers", and certainly not going "right back to the days of pirate radio". Extended figurative uses of "piracy", including for unauthorised reproduction of creative works, have been around far longer, since at least 1606, which was before copyright was invented.
And "pirate radio" wasn't called that because of unauthorised copying, but because they were broadcasting without a licence. The name has historically been attached to just about anything illegal or even which the speaker merely disapproves of. For example, on 16 Jul 1897 the Prime Minister spoke in the House of Lords about "theological piracy" in the context of a debate about church schools and non-conformists in Wales.
-
-
Sunday 15th January 2012 03:00 GMT Homer 1
"The Pirate Bay" name...
...is a piss-take of those who think merely SHARING something is equivocal to firing cannonballs into a ship, swinging across on a rope, running people through with a sword, hoisting the Skull & Bones, then sailing off into the sunset, singing "Fifteen Men On The Dead Man's Chest", whilst rogering the cabin boy.
The "Federation Against Copyright Theft", OTOH, is a bunch of gangsters in suits who peddle propaganda about copyright infringement being "theft" by, amongst other things, choosing a grammatically nonsensical name for themselves that actually suggests its possible to "steal a copyright".
This presumably entails planning a heist of the IPO office in Newport, forcing open a locked filing cabinet with a jemmy, then making off with a copyright application form in a high speed chase through Newport in a Mini Cooper.
Since this fictional scenario is quite comical, and thus fails to elicit the desired response of outrage and horror, F.A.C.T. needed to embellish it even further with images of cars being stolen and little old ladies being mugged, to stigmatise the act of sharing as something equivocal to committing violent crime, for the same reason the MAFIAA® liken it to looting a ship and killing its passengers.
Whereas in reality, sharing is not any sort of "violence", it isn't "piracy", it isn't "counterfeiting", it isn't "mugging", it isn't "theft", and moreover it isn't even any sort of "loss" whatsoever, since those who can pay invariably do pay, and those who can't - won't, irrespective of whether or not they can get this precious "IP" for free on The Pirate Bay. IOW the concept of a "lost sale" in this scenario is, much like the propaganda terms used to describe it, a work of utter fiction.
-
Saturday 14th January 2012 16:26 GMT Charles 9
How about this for a spell?
I've been busy writing a book.
You happen to give it an evil look.
One day what's taken me an age
has been copied from me, page for page.
I intended to sell it to make a dollar.
Now everyone has it without a holler.
A living lost, my money taken.
That's theft, if I am not mistaken.
Not interested anyway?
Why's my work seeing the light of day?
Oh, that cliffhanger at the end?
Don't bother waiting—I've hung my pen.
BTW, if you should ever find a copy of the old EA game Hard Nova, read the inside cover. Has its own interesting spin on the whole piracy deal, and it's the basis for this little poem.
-
-
Saturday 14th January 2012 05:37 GMT Homer 1
"OK to violate"
I don't need to think it's "OK to violate" a law just to recognise that the law in question is not what propagandists try to portray it as.
If some "IP" troll thinks he's "lost" something, then he's more than welcome to try to explain to the Beaks exactly what it is he thinks he's "lost", but until the establishment of that fact, no actual loss can be assumed.
The fact of copyright (or any other "IP") infringement is not in contention, but in and of itself that doesn't mean very much.
-
Saturday 14th January 2012 22:14 GMT Sean Baggaley 1
Counterfeiting is illegal...
This is why printing your own banknotes is generally frowned upon.
When you make a copy of something that has inherent value, you _reduce_ its inherent value with the copy. You ARE taking something from someone: you're reducing the intrinsic value of the work they put into creating it in the first place. Make too many copies and the intrinsic value of that work effectively becomes zero. Which means the creator(s) of the work get nothing at all in return for their efforts. This is despite having *already put in the effort needed to create* the work. So they get _less_ than nothing: they _lose out_.
We've all got to eat, pay the rent, and buy clothes for ourselves and our families. How is someone whose primary talent is music or writing supposed to earn a living if you remove their ability to do so?
Why should someone be allowed to make money from building a house and leasing it at a monthly rate, while someone else is NOT allowed to make money from creating something like a novel, or a new orchestral or choral work and charging for that to pay _their_ bills? A house may last 100-200 years or so; a novel or a song can last _forever_.
Either our work has value, or it does not. Which is it? That's what this issue boils down to.
-
Sunday 15th January 2012 00:33 GMT Ben Tasker
@Sean
I think you're right, ive had a successful week and my employer should reap the benefit for years. Would be nice if I could charge them indefinitely. Oh wait I can't.
In your example the guy building the house will have fronted a lot of cash and is unlikely to cover that without selling/leasing. You also wouldnt get done if you built an exact copy, you've not deprived him of anything.
Whilst I agree creators should be paid, current copyright terms are far in excess of what they should be, media companies are trying to extradite and the quality of mainstream output seems to be declining. Is it any wonder people dont want to pay? Sure some will always chose free, but some want to pay for something decent.
An items intrinsic value is only what someone is willing to pay for it. Doesnt matter if the price tag says £10 if the majority think its worth less then thats all you can expect to get (you are of course free to just not sell in the first place)
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Sunday 15th January 2012 16:30 GMT Homer 1
"Atomically identical copies make it worthless"
If making "atomically identical" copies of something makes it "worthless", then please explain how content providers make money on the sale of digital music, video, books and software, every copy of which is "atomically identical".
Surely all those copies should be FREE! After all, they're "worthless".
Welcome aboard, ma Buccaneer!
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Sunday 15th January 2012 22:06 GMT Homer 1
"Most income derived through merchandise"
Bollocks.
"IP" is a license to print money, and you know it.
Years ago, some boffin deduced the material costs (i.e. everything including marketing, distribution and salaries) of a CD was (IIRC) about 20p per unit, on the sale of an album costing upwards of £15. The remaining £14.80 was all "IP" money, i.e. your "license" to listen to that music - a "license", BTW, that seems to magically disappear whenever you need to replace the physical media, or obtain it in a new format (Why don't we just have to pay material costs? Are we "licensed", or aren't we?). Now multiply that by however many millions of copies are sold, across the world, for a period of time that extends to "death plus 70 years", with never-ending extensions to that copyright - essentially making it perpetual, plus all the third-party royalties for using that music in films, television, advertising, live performances, etc.
"Merchandise" my ass.
Claiming that the act of copying something makes it "worthless" is highly disingenuous, given that it's the mass reproduction of "IP" that makes it so valuable to "content providers" in the first place.
In the grand scheme of things, given the obscene margins and vast scale of reproduction, a few million "stray" copies, taken by those who, in all likelihood, would never have paid for it anyway, won't even make a dent in that industry.
The MAFIAA® keeps promising it'll go "bankrupt" because of "piracy". And yet here we are, years later, still waiting patiently.
-
Monday 16th January 2012 12:13 GMT Anonymous Coward
"In the grand scheme of things, given the obscene margins and vast scale of reproduction, a few million "stray" copies, taken by those who, in all likelihood, would never have paid for it anyway, won't even make a dent in that industry."
Ah, so it's OK to steal stuff as long as you only steal a little, since the honest folks who pay for the rest will more than cover the costs? Thieving twat.
-
Friday 20th January 2012 02:36 GMT Homer 1
"Thieving twat"?
You must have missed the part where the law clearly fails to define copyright infringement as theft.
The only thing that's been "stolen" is a non-existent opportunity to make money from a sale that would never have happened, where the "object" being sold is a fictitious bottle of snake oil, and the "thief" dares to imagine his own fictitious bottle of snake oil.
The "rights holder" still has the same money and material goods he had before this "infringement". Nothing has been "stolen". Nothing would have been sold. Nothing has been "lost".
This is the problem you, and other "IP" fanatics, are having with this whole "copyright infringement is theft" propaganda: IP is not REAL property. This is why it's impossible to steal it, no matter how you spin it.
"IP" is an unnatural privilege that should never have been granted. The difficulties associated with enforcing that unnatural privilege are therefore not exactly surprising. It's like claiming "ownership" of a specific two cubic inches of the Pacific ocean, trying to stop it from mixing with the rest of the ocean, then suing anyone who happens to use what you claim is your two cubic inches water, for all the "hard work" it took you to claim it.
It's rather silly, and would be hilarious if it weren't for the viciousness with which "IP" extortionists pursue their bogus claims.
-
-
-
-
Monday 16th January 2012 11:09 GMT DragonLord
If you were able to make atomically accurate copies (including software) of the latest car that Ford were trying to sell and for less money than they could sell it for and maintain R&D, then you would lower the value of that model of ford down to the cost of copying it after a while, as you'd probably be selling them for around the production cost of about £2-3K rather than the 20-30K they currently charge (and that's for a fully specced model). However you wouldn't have deprived Ford of any stock at all. It could also be argued that most of the people that bought your copy wouldn't have bought an original Ford anyway due to the cost. However in real terms, the value of Ford's new car would in fact plummet to match the cost that you could produce it for.
In digital media the same is true, as almost everyone agrees that the people that do the work of producing the music deserve to be paid (song writer, musicians, sound crew, editors, venue owners (where it was recorded), etc.). Some of these people will be paid up front (sound crew, and venue), which means that these costs have to be recouped before the song writer, musicians and editors start making any money. If they had to take out a bank loan, then this needs to be paid every month.
Now standard business logic says that your break even point is the point where money coming in from the items you've sold matches your costs to produce and sell those items (whether it's cars, cokes, buttons, or music) (google break even chart for an explaination).
If our mythical 4 person band is selling through Apple, then they've got a fixed price point of around 99p/song and apple take about 30% of that (let's call it £1 and 30p for easy maths) so the song produces 60p towards covering expenses. If a sound crew of 5 people costs £35/hour/person and a song takes 1 hour to get right, then that means that the cost of the crew is £175, which means that JUST to pay their wages you need to sell 292 copies of your song on apple. Doing a quick google, a recording studio in London charges between £30 and £90/hour so if we go for the mid point that's £60 which is another 100 copies (bring our total up to 392). And this is just for the fixed costs of producing the initial recording. From the same website that I got the cost of the recording studio, they also charge £130 for mastering (which I assume is the production of a master copy that is a high enough resolution to create any feasible subsequent copies from). And £130/hour for post production. So let's assume our band doesn't have someone that can so the post production, and they don't own their own mastering software/hardware, that's another £260 minimum added on which is another 434 sales (bringing our total up to 826). Once they've sold those they then start making money to pay the people they didn't have to pay up front. So if the band needed to practice the song for 30 hours before it was ready to be played and they "pay" themselves £10/hour then that's £40/hour for the band which comes to £1,240 (1 hour to produce the song) that needs to be covered by the music, which is another 2067 copies (bring our total up to 2893). The editor/manager probably charges around £20/hour (plucked from thin air with no research what so ever) and spent 4 hours arranging thing and making sure the recording happened properly. This is another £80 that needs to be covered which is another 134 sales needed (current total 3027). And finally the song writer also likes to be paid £10/hour and spent 6 hours (being nice) writing the song which is another 100 sales (current total 3127).
So Just to cover the cost of selling their song on apple, our band needs to have sold 3127 copies of that song. If that song doesn't do very well and they only sell 1500 copies then they need to sell an additional 1627 of other songs after covering the costs of producing those songs to break even.
So, no copyright infringement isn't theft, however it is still depriving someone of the income to for the work they've done.
I suppose we could always go back to the days pre recording, where if you wanted to hear music you had to actually hire the musicians and pay them up front for their work, but then how many people would be willing to sacrifice their music libraries for that?
-
Monday 16th January 2012 11:14 GMT Vic
> So, no copyright infringement isn't theft
Thank you. That was the point under discussion.
> however it is still depriving someone of the income to for the work they've done.
That was not the point under discussion.
Nor is it something protected by law; depriving someone of the income they had expected (but not yet realised) is not unlawful. The means by which that is achieved might be.
But that is a tangential discussion. What we were heading towards is the point agreed above - copyright infringement is not theft.
Vic.
-
Monday 16th January 2012 11:38 GMT DragonLord
Erm, there were 2 parts to the OP, the part that I was reponding to was about intrinsic value, and recooping money spent
"If some "IP" troll thinks he's "lost" something, then he's more than welcome to try to explain to the Beaks exactly what it is he thinks he's "lost", but until the establishment of that fact, no actual loss can be assumed."
So my post was to explain the value of the copyright, why it has value, and thus what the loss is. As it is something that appears to pass by many people when they start on the copyright infringement isn't theft crusade, and also on the copyright infringement doesn't cost the originator anything.
-
Monday 16th January 2012 12:12 GMT Vic
> So my post was to explain the value of the copyright
This was never at issue.
> it is something that appears to pass by many people when they
> start on the copyright infringement isn't theft crusade,
No. That is exactly the false dichotomy I keep highlighting.
Just because we say that copyright infringement isn't theft, we are *not* saying that it is OK.
Do I need to repeat that?
Just because we say that copyright infringement isn't theft, we are *not* saying that it is OK.
No-one is ignorant of the value of copyright. We all know that copyright infringement is at least unlawful. We are not arguing that it is a Good Thing(tm) to do.
What we are arguing is that conflating it with theft is wrong. There are many reasons for such conflation, and none of them are good.
Vic.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sunday 15th January 2012 01:57 GMT Homer 1
"Counterfeiting"?
Oh, and copyright infringement isn't "counterfeiting" either. It IS the same entity, not an attempt to recreate it in the same image, then fraudulently claim to be its authentic creator. The entity itself IS authentic, no matter where it is. The only part that ISN'T authentic is its distribution (unauthorised copying).
This is an unavoidable consequence of something ethereal like "IP", which unlike REAL property can simultaneously exist in many places at the same time, and yet still be the original, genuine article. If it weren't the same entity, then the "rights" owner couldn't claim copyright infringement. He'd have to look at trademark or patent law instead, if applicable.
This "counterfeiting" nonsense is the same bullshit propaganda as "theft" and "piracy".
The reason these propagandists have such difficulty articulating an accurate analogy to copyright infringement (especially one that elicits sympathy for a supposed victim's "loss"), is because there isn't one. "IP" is an unnatural aberration without equal, for which there is never any actual "loss", except the highly naive and actually quite arrogant presumption of a "lost sale", usually accompanied by sob stories, rhetoric and meaningless statistics.
-
Sunday 15th January 2012 18:14 GMT Vic
> This is why printing your own banknotes is generally frowned upon.
But counterfeiting is *not* theft.
So it is with copyright infringement; many of us frown upon it, and many of us support the enforcement of copyright, but we still object to the outright lies that are peddled about it being theft.
In the UK, theft is defined by the Theft Act 1968. You will not find copyright infringement listed within it - indeed, the definition of theft quite clearly precludes copying becoming included in it.
So spare us your false dichotomies.
Vic.
-
-
-
Saturday 14th January 2012 09:11 GMT Anonymous Coward
You could see this coming from a mile away. It seems that torrent files are going by the wayside. Especially with DHT and PEX you hardly need the torrent file anymore anyway. Magnet links are only harder to use when there are not very many people in a swarm, or if the people in the swarm use crap clients that don't give out the meta info. I hate when various clients don't give out the meta info. I am glad that the client I use, Tixati, hands out meta info and does a great job with magnet links.
-
Sunday 15th January 2012 17:45 GMT Andrew Norton
Still spamming tixati?
and probably posting via tor nodes too...
" I am glad that the client I use, Tixati, hands out meta info"
So does every client that handles magnets. It's what we in the know call "part of the specification".
The more and more tixati spam I see, the LESS likely I am to try the client.
-
-
Saturday 14th January 2012 18:32 GMT Anonymous Coward
Define Loss
If Apple think I would have bought an iPad if the Galaxy hadn't come along----wrong so samsung didnt stop a sale
If i copied something then I really had no intention of buying it, again, no sale lost
Like ways, I've seen some films that I would never have thought about or watched but saw a OK downloaded copy at a friends so went bought the DVD, so they actuallu gained a sale where there would not have been one if not for piracy.
Works both ways
-
Saturday 14th January 2012 23:03 GMT httpss
howitzdun
"How is someone whose primary talent is music or writing supposed to earn a living if you remove their ability to do so?"
They get out of bed and present themselves at the place of gig and play their set to the paying audience. if I could record myself doing a day's work and send it in from bed I shoorley wood.
geddit??
-
Sunday 15th January 2012 13:44 GMT ridley
So are you saying that there should be no more films and the actors should tour the world putting on a stage play of what would have been the film?
Or for that matter how does it work if you are a writer of fiction? Book readings?
Or how about if you are a writer of non fiction? How do you tour putting on a show of a Haynes manual or a Physics text book?
-
Monday 16th January 2012 02:08 GMT Goat Jam
The Statute Of Anne
Look it up.
A fair period of content monopoly followed by rights being transferred into the public domain.
Content corporations (not artists) have successfully extended copyrights to the point where they now are extremely biased towards business interests.
Why should I pay some media corporation a fee to listen to T-Rex when Marc Bolan died 25 years ago?
If you can't make a decent quid in 14/28 years of monopoly and then invest your profits for the future then you are doing something wrong and need to get a proper job.
The media corporations want perpetual copyright and they will not stop until they get it.
-
-
-
Sunday 15th January 2012 11:49 GMT Mage
About Freedom and Censorship?
Probably a tiny fraction of "Pirate Bay" is about "Freedom and Censorship". Most of it is about people who are parasites and justify it because some big companies do bad stuff.
Well, people overcharging or not providing suitable downloads gives no-one the right to break International Conventions, deprive creators and basically be parasites. If a large majority did it all the time there would be no decent new content.
As it is, fortunately, less than 30% are parasites and maybe only 1% are dedicated 24x7 parasites (who are also responsible for about half the drop of your Internet speed).
SOPA is wrong and should be opposed. But a better Pirate Bay only plays into the court of the Lunatics that want SOPA.
-
Sunday 15th January 2012 18:51 GMT Andrew Norton
Funny..
I personally have around 150 hours of audio on TPB, a few videos, OH, and a BOOK on there as of next week.
All legal for download, and perfectly legal for anyone to torrent. My relation to those files? Why... I created those files. from scratch.
I'm far from alone in this too.
There's about 150,000 torrents on ISOhunt that are the same, thanks to their partnership deal with Jamendo.
-
-
Sunday 15th January 2012 12:49 GMT Martin Maloney
A different perspective
I see it as coming from the Puritan work ethic standpoint. That is, it's immoral to get anything for free.
Whether it's P2P ifle sharing or copying computer program disks or movie DVDs or using a box to decrypt cable TV or satellite TV, it's all the same: We should have to pay for anything that we get.
It's not about lost revenue -- it's about morality. That's why rational arguments on either side of the so-called piracy issue never go anywhere -- they are irrelevant.
What the opponents of so-called piracy are really saying is that it is a sin, and that so-called pirates are sinners.
-
Sunday 15th January 2012 22:30 GMT Homer 1
Sharing is "immoral" now?
Really?
Dear God, the propaganda is getting worse!
Well please explain how we somehow managed to produce art and inventions for thousands of years without this thing called "IP", before the the enactment of the Statute of Monopolies in 1624 (primarily patents) and the Statute of Anne, a hundred years later (primarily copyrights)?
Are you saying there was no science and art prior to that time?
It may surprise you to learn that the enactment of the Statute of Monopolies more or less exactly coincided with the END of an era called the Renaissance, a three hundred year period of mankind's greatest accomplishments in science and the arts (hint: Leonardo de Vinci), all without the slightest whiff of "IP".
Those scientists and artists all got paid though, despite no one ever being prosecuted for "IP" infringement.
The results of their work was subsequently shared by the rest of the world, and built upon in a process of accretion, just as those scientists and artists had done before them, of course. Or did you think their knowledge simply dropped from the sky, like a divine gift from God?
ALL knowledge is derivative, and therefore any claim to exclusive "ownership" of it is a blatant lie.
THAT is the REAL immorality, not sharing.
-
Monday 16th January 2012 12:04 GMT DragonLord
If I remember my history lessons correctly, most of the knowledge of the era actually died with the author because there was no protection for IP, and so inventors used to go round to various wealthy benefactors and ask them if they wanted to pay the inventor to make one of their inventions for them. At no point would they share that information with anyone else (although the finished invention could be considered sharing) as if they did then someone else could then earn money off of their hard work.
Also the reason for the IP laws introduction was to reduce the crowns ability to abuse monopolies on common items and thus making it illegal to make soap for example unless you were so appointed (even though it was a commonly known recipe at the time), not to protect new inventions. And lots of people got prosecuted for infringing crown appointed monopolies, and often ended up destitute because of it.
-
-
Monday 16th January 2012 13:28 GMT Martin
Sharing?
That's just as dishonest as "stealing".
If I produce some music, and I don't give people permission to copy it without payment, then anyone who DOES copy it is not bloody SHARING it.
If I write a book, and someone decides to copy it without paying for it, it is not SHARED.
It's been nicked. End of. And I can damn well tell you (because it's happened to me) that it FEELS like it's been nicked.
It may not be legally stolen. It may not be possible to do anything about it. But someone has acquired something of mine, which I didn't want them to have without payment. They have not SHARED it, and they have no right to "share" it with anyone else.
And anyone who tries to come up with some spurious moral high ground about "it's not really theft, and I'm only sharing it" is just lying through their teeth.
-
Friday 20th January 2012 03:07 GMT Homer 1
Publishing is sharing
Whatever private thoughts you have are your own, but it's unreasonable for you to expect to somehow be able to control others thoughts. However, that is exactly what "IP" does: In essence it makes the contents of my mind your "property", because I happened to read your book or look at your painting.
It's sick, a dystopian nightmare worthy of Orwell.
Of course, I only managed to read that book or look at that painting because you shared it with the world by publishing it. And now, having shared it, you think you should have the right to "unshare" it, to make people "unknow" what they already know, because they don't have your permission to see what you shoved in their faces.
This is the problem with claiming ethereal things as "property": The mechanism required to control that "property" requires draconian measures that subjugate others' intellectual freedom.
My mind is not your property. I will not "unknow" things just to satisfy your totalitarianism and greed. If you don't want people to share your knowledge, then don't publish it in the first place, and if you do, then don't fraudulently claim it as your property, when you know damned-well you acquired it from others, just like everyone else does.
Here's one of the more obvious examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbaland_plagiarism_controversy
In fact ALL "IP" is just as plagiarised. All knowledge is derivative. Intellectual "Property" is a lie.
-
-
-
-
Sunday 15th January 2012 17:50 GMT Andrew Norton
Let me point out to you..
Here's the sentence that's key.
"were financed by Carl Lundström, one of the alleged sponsors of Swedish far-right political party Sweden Democrats."
There's a KEY word in there. It's "alleged". That means there's no proof.
There's another important one.
"Carl Lundström is the CEO and largest shareholder of Rix Telecom, a large provider in Sweden, where at least one member of The Pirate Bay used to work."
So, he's THOUGHT to ALSO finance a political party, but he IS the head of a large telecommunications company. Now, which do you think is relevant to the issue of funding a high-bandwidth web site?
-
-
Sunday 15th January 2012 20:31 GMT Mectron
Piracy as yet to hurt sales
Music, movies and software(especialy games) have yet to suffer from piracy. Multi-TRILLIONS dollards industries complain about someone getting their product for free... big deal. First, games like MW3 or Battlefield are among the most pirated game ever and yet..... MW3 made a billions in less time then the movie avatar (who made more then 2 billions even while been "downloaded" millions of times.).
The only real criminal here is the MPAA/RIAA, who alone have destroyed more lives arround the glode then any terrorist organisation ever did. Piracy is in the news exclusivly because the MPAA/RIAA is pushing it there. Only in Amarican based group (MPAA/RIAA) can openly commit crimes on a dailyt basis and get away with it.
By definition the MPAA/RIAA (and all other similar organisation arround thr world are ILLEGAL. to start with, but saddly, most country justice system will take the money instead of applying justice (who will be the immediate declaration of the MPAA/RIAA as terrorist groups, shuting them down and jail for life those behid it.
There is simple no a shred of evidence that online piracy has ever hurt the sales of ANYTHING.
-
Monday 16th January 2012 15:09 GMT Anonymous Coward
Fame don't pay the rent
While many artists do their work as a labor of love, that don't pay the rent. the reason copyright law exists is to protect artistic works. Those who violate copyright laws are punished for their crimes as they should be. All pirates and facilitators of piracy belong in prison.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
