Piracy. Theft or not?

[Doom9]

Yes the DMCA is evil. And no it was not wholly inspired by internet or DVD piracy. But it does cover DVD piracy and such. The bottom line is the DMCA was inspired in large part by piracy. Piracy is not something new. But the scale in which it is being commited now is. And it is becomming a very usefull tool against all of us. maybe I have to go back a little more in time to make my point then.. do you know SCMS? Serial Copy Management System.. it was introduced when DAT first showed up.. DAT always was largely a tool for professionals and no the mass market. At that time when SCMS was conceived to stop uncontrollable distribution of CD copies (remember: DAT was and still is an expensive media for pros.. no mass market tool so the spread would've been limited in any case). Now.. when DAT was introduced the hardware industry agreed on SCMS.. and it has even been made illegal to circumvent SCMS. SCMS was then also used on DCC and miniDisc, 2 formats more destined for the mass market but both never enjoyed the success CD has (DCC is dead, miniDisc is not progressing much though it's a rather popular recording format but in the long run I think formats like MP3 will spell doom for MD). You cannot say that SCMS was motivated by piracy? Piracy as in people copying CDs did not exist at that time (except maybe for some company pressing CDs illegally but that's outside of my scope since it requires hardware that normal people will never have access to). So.. we have the content industry creating copy protection schemes and outlawing their circumvention even before anybody was able to actually pirate something. So.. copy protection for digital media was there before piracy, not the other way round. Piracy is a convenient excuse.. but only an excuse. the technical measures and laws were there first, not the pirate.

as for CD prices, I largely invest my money into DVDs these days, not audio CDs but I did not notice a lot of movements in CD prices whenever I bought one.. maybe that's because I live close to a large CE chain which has a huge collection of CDs (and not only mainstream stuff.. they have an amazing selection for being a large CE retail chain). Of course I can only speak for myself there. But you have to admit that you can't reasonably expect somebody with a 200$ wage to pay $20 for a movie. Of course that doesn't apply to our countries but it's a reason why piracy is so much more widespread in poorer countries and it's even more ridiculous to calculate "losses" in terms of sold pirate copies in Asia.. those people could simply not afford to pay the price the copyright owner charges.

[mikemikez]

Times have changed but big corporations are not flexible enough to adopt their marketing so they successfully get our governments to help them making too much money on too little real value added to media sold as cd's and dvd's.

The media wars are the perfect example of how our world is more and more getting dominated by large corporations. People tend to forget that the basic idea behind the free market is to let companies fight eachother and even make them take the fall if society changes in such a way that their products become hard to market.
NEVER, never should people be censored for the profit of companies. If I am able to share a movie with a thousand people that's their problem and they should learn from that by making smaller buget movies or maybe just going bankrupt so small companies can florish.


Mike

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Doom9
maybe I have to go back a little more in time to make my point then.. do you know SCMS? Serial Copy Management System.. it was introduced when DAT first showed up.. DAT always was largely a tool for professionals and no the mass market. At that time when SCMS was conceived to stop uncontrollable distribution of CD copies (remember: DAT was and still is an expensive media for pros.. no mass market tool so the spread would've been limited in any case). Now.. when DAT was introduced the hardware industry agreed on SCMS.. and it has even been made illegal to circumvent SCMS. SCMS was then also used on DCC and miniDisc, 2 formats more destined for the mass market but both never enjoyed the success CD has (DCC is dead, miniDisc is not progressing much though it's a rather popular recording format but in the long run I think formats like MP3 will spell doom for MD). You cannot say that SCMS was motivated by piracy? Piracy as in people copying CDs did not exist at that time (except maybe for some company pressing CDs illegally but that's outside of my scope since it requires hardware that normal people will never have access to). So.. we have the content industry creating copy protection schemes and outlawing their circumvention even before anybody was able to actually pirate something. So.. copy protection for digital media was there before piracy, not the other way round. Piracy is a convenient excuse.. but only an excuse. the technical measures and laws were there first, not the pirate.

DAT is not so good an analogy when speaking to most Americans. :) You just happened to find one of the few who have any idea what Digital Audio Tape is. :) As for piracy it existed even before CD. Even before cassete tapes. Even before the 8-track. We are going back over 60 years or so! Piracy is not an invention of the last few decades. The DMCA unlike the SCMS as I understand from you is that the DMCA is targeted at the public from the get go. Not a group of professionals, but the average joe. The DMCA is not meant to stop studios/producers from stealing from other studios/producers.

Give me the name of a new release CD and I can get you a pirate copy on 8mm real-to-real, 8-track, or audio cassete! Your choice! Tell me where you are going to get a better deal than that on the internet? :confused: :devil: :sly:


Originally posted by Doom9
as for CD prices, I largely invest my money into DVDs these days, not audio CDs but I did not notice a lot of movements in CD prices whenever I bought one.. maybe that's because I live close to a large CE chain which has a huge collection of CDs (and not only mainstream stuff.. they have an amazing selection for being a large CE retail chain). Of course I can only speak for myself there. But you have to admit that you can't reasonably expect somebody with a 200$ wage to pay $20 for a movie. Of course that doesn't apply to our countries but it's a reason why piracy is so much more widespread in poorer countries and it's even more ridiculous to calculate "losses" in terms of sold pirate copies in Asia.. those people could simply not afford to pay the price the copyright owner charges.

I am speaking of major retailers of CDs as well. Not small mom&pop operations. But places like Best Buy, Sam Goody, Tower, etc. Best Buy was and still is fairly reasonable. But over the last two or three years the average CD price there has gone up one or two dolars. And well don't expect to go to Sam Goody without getting ripped off with an average price at least two dollars higher than the same CD at Best Buy! :eek:

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by mikemikez
Times have changed but big corporations are not flexible enough to adopt their marketing so they successfully get our governments to help them making too much money on too little real value added to media sold as cd's and dvd's.

The media wars are the perfect example of how our world is more and more getting dominated by large corporations. People tend to forget that the basic idea behind the free market is to let companies fight eachother and even make them take the fall if society changes in such a way that their products become hard to market.

They don't worry about producing good content when there are people buying, and people like yourself stumbling over themselves to pirate it. You and every other person in the world who pirates is having no effect on these companies. They raise prices to cover percieved losses and are now earning more than ever before. And it is all thanks to people who pirate like you. They are also using piracy as a rallying point to trample consumer rights to protect their intrests. All because of people who pirate.

Originally posted by mikemikez
NEVER, never should people be censored for the profit of companies. If I am able to share a movie with a thousand people that's their problem and they should learn from that by making smaller buget movies or maybe just going bankrupt so small companies can florish.


Mike

Those statements are incorrect in so many ways I don't know quite where to begin. Being censored basically means your rights to free speech or speech in general are being violated. This has nothing to do with censorship in any way. You are not speaking and you have no rights to share or trade the media in the ways you sugest.

How did you end up associating censorship and illegal/wrongfull media trading? It might be an interesting thought process. But I highly doubt it is defensable in any way.

[Doobie]

Some people see strong copyright law as a response to piracy (this is somewhat true). I see piracy as largely a response to the content companies not being responsive to consumers and demanding unrealistic copyright laws. And, we can go back further than the DAT (which was killed by the content companies not being responsive to consumers who didn't want a locked up recording device) to VCRs that they tried to kill because of piracy concerns before there was any piracy (back then, the movie companies didn't seem to think that they needed home video sales).

Indeed, copyright law was getting increasingly much stronger before Napster and even before the Internet. In 1977 copyright protection went from 28 years plus 28 more if renewed to lifetime plus 50 years. And, several years ago that was increased again to lifetime plus 70 years. Meanwhile, no content gets dated as fast as computer software in which the original 14-year-life of a copyright is too long (floppy disks don't last 14 years, let alone the commercial viability of the software on those old disks).

Neo Neko, you're still totally backwards on the affect of piracy on price.

mikemikez, movie companies don't need to make lower budget movies. They can make plenty of money in the movie theaters and they can continue to sell DVDs even if you can share them freely. It's totally realistic for movie makers to prevent consumers from having access to high quality copies of movies until the DVD is released.

Mike, I totally agree with you that people should not be censored and spied on for the sake of a little corporate profit. In fact, the content companies need to accept that peer-to-peer programs can evolve, if pushed, to a fully anonymous nature where users can't be stopped or observed (ala Freenet). They've been losing their war on piracy because they're not being realistic.

[MfA]

Companies set the price which will maximize their profit, mostly in the short term, they dont try to cover "losses" perceived or otherwise.

[mikemikez]

Neo Neko,

I'm getting soooo fed up with your critics that follow the person instead of your vision! You make no sense at all but still manage mess up every single topic in which you take part just because of the incredible amount of lines of text YOU CLAIM!

In again one of your famous claims you state that piracy is the cause of all the problems. Aren't you again being a bit too polarised on this one? How come you always have to play on the man or TRY to insult people?

The problem Neo Neko is that large corporations don't allow the existance of small ones in sectors like this! Besides, large monopolies or cartels will always charge exactly that amount of money that will optimize their profit or turnover, whatever is more imortant to them at that stage.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the moment when every single movie that has ever been published on DVD will be stored on a single carrier and will be distributed by people like me for costprice.

Yes, that will make the new movie marketing even more agressive but they will never be able to make the cinema twice or three times as expensive because people will simply not visit it anymore and power will go to the smaller movie makers just like what's happening in music industry rightnow.


You said you wanted our opinion Neo but next time, please be a bit more straightforward and just write down YOUR opinion right away instead of posting an open topic and afterwards claiming it with your huge, subjective, one sided and often even insulting replies.


Mike

[Doom9]

As for piracy it existed even before CD. Even before cassete tapes. Even before the 8-track. We are going back over 60 years or so! Piracy is not an invention of the last few decades.I never said otherwise.. but my point is.. they came up with copy protection for digital media before there was digital piracy. It was a preventive measure, not something they instigated upon finding out that people were copying. But if you want to go back in time.. dunno when but there was a supreme court decision a long long time ago barring studios from owning movie theatres. Prior to that studios owned movie distribution from A to Z. And ever since that court call they've tried to re-introduce such a situation where they're in control from making until you watching the movie at home. Remember the Betamax decision? or remeber DIVX? There's a history of studios trying to control distribution as far as possible. DIVX failed so now instead of trying another technical measure to keep tabs of which movie is being watched when and where they go the legal way... make DIVX (in form of DRM chips in every device) the law then nobody has the option of not buying it (so it has to succeed).

The DMCA unlike the SCMS as I understand from you is that the DMCA is targeted at the public from the get go. Not a group of professionals, but the average joe. The DMCA is not meant to stop studios/producers from stealing from other studios/producers.
at that time nobody knew how DAT would develop.. it wasn't designed as copy protection for high end devices.. it was an overall solution. The mere fact that later on DCC, MD and recordable CDs (you can still find audio CD-Rs and Philips and some others still sell these devices) all contain SMCS as well shows that. And even nowadays, Sony's key2audio copy protection for audio CDs also makes use of SCMS.. they set the SCMS flag to "no copy" thus screwing everybody who bought a MiniDisc or other digital audio recorder to make backups of their CDs as the advertisement suggested (couple of years back Sony was advertising MD as ideal solution to create your own compilation.. now they're screwing the people stupid enough to believe in those ads).

Tell me where you are going to get a better deal than that on the internet? that doesn't necessarily have to be so. I still recall my Napster experience where I, since I had a proper collection (sorted by albums, files properly named, all with ID3 tags) was getting ripped off by all the leechers (nobody shared a good collection but everybody is leeching off people who have a good collection... ) and I know the problem some of my friends using p2p services are having.. so if you give me a choice to download a CD as properly done MP3s and authorized by the studio I would rather pay than go to the p2p trouble again. If you want to download the latest MTV top 20 p2p might be good enough for you but the less mainstream your music taste is the harder it is to create a good collection just downloading from the net.. but maybe I just don't have enough criminal energy in me.
But my point is that piracy is a question of how much effort it requires and how much the legal alternative cost. Add a reasonably fair copy protection scheme into this and I think you're much closer to a feasible solution than all the xyzab laws that are being proposed now. For instance.. I think the SCMS copy protection scheme is reasonably fair.. if you own your audio CD you can make copies of it.. but you cannot copy the copies anymore.. that makes sense from a fair use point of view since if you're the legal owner you can make your copies but if you give these copies to a friend he/she cannot make any more copies thus stopping exponential duplication. Of course that is not the solution to everything since we have to throw computers into the mix as well.. but the solution has to be a compromise between the end user and the content provider and not a complete end user rights forfeit as it's being proposed now.

last but not least.. I think I've shown the content provider's trail.. their goal is complete control over distribution. Piracy is not the reason why they are pushing DRM now... they've always wanted that as it fits into the control scheme. All that piracy is is a convenient excuse to try yet another movie to abolish end user rights. I have serious doubts that we wouldn't be seeing the exact same law proposal and technical measures if piracy stopped from one day to another. On the other hand the whole robin hood rhetorics is nothing but a convenient excuse for people to take without paying for it. Some simply don't want to pay for music, some can't afford it and still want to have a collection.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Doobie
Some people see strong copyright law as a response to piracy (this is somewhat true). I see piracy as largely a response to the content companies not being responsive to consumers and demanding unrealistic copyright laws. And, we can go back further than the DAT (which was killed by the content companies not being responsive to consumers who didn't want a locked up recording device) to VCRs that they tried to kill because of piracy concerns before there was any piracy (back then, the movie companies didn't seem to think that they needed home video sales).

I think you will be displeased with the response you are provoking. They may not have wanted home VHS etc sales. But now that they have it and know how good it can be for everybody don't expect them to give it up. Get over it.

Originally posted by Doobie
Indeed, copyright law was getting increasingly much stronger before Napster and even before the Internet. In 1977 copyright protection went from 28 years plus 28 more if renewed to lifetime plus 50 years. And, several years ago that was increased again to lifetime plus 70 years. Meanwhile, no content gets dated as fast as computer software in which the original 14-year-life of a copyright is too long (floppy disks don't last 14 years, let alone the commercial viability of the software on those old disks).


Still your pirating is only helping them to pen and pass laws that violate the consumer even more.

Originally posted by Doobie
Neo Neko, you're still totally backwards on the affect of piracy on price.


You have yet to put forth any evidence to the contrary. You have yet to put forth any evidence to counter my honest concise observation of the increase in CD prices since the internet trading boom. I don't think you ever will. You are silmpy trying to justify the selfish hurtful actions of piracy.

Originally posted by Doobie
Mike, I totally agree with you that people should not be censored and spied on for the sake of a little corporate profit.


I wholly agree on this part it is the next par that is at odds.

Originally posted by Doobie
In fact, the content companies need to accept that peer-to-peer programs can evolve, if pushed, to a fully anonymous nature where users can't be stopped or observed (ala Freenet). They've been losing their war on piracy because they're not being realistic.

They have lost nothing in the piracy war. At best we are at a stalemate with them getting ready to bring up some heavy hitters which are going to ruin things for everyone. You just have to look to your favorite tech rags to see the real effects of piracy.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Doom9
I never said otherwise.. but my point is.. they came up with copy protection for digital media before there was digital piracy. It was a preventive measure, not something they instigated upon finding out that people were copying.

I never ignored or disputed that fact. It is in fact a fact of history. Undesputed. But to say that digital piracy today has no effects on the copyright legislation that we in America will soon be made victim to is naieve. Not that you said that. Just that it would be. I understand 100% where you are comming from. But I sense that the majority here have no grasp of where I am coming from for some reason.


Originally posted by Doom9
But if you want to go back in time.. dunno when but there was a supreme court decision a long long time ago barring studios from owning movie theatres. Prior to that studios owned movie distribution from A to Z. And ever since that court call they've tried to re-introduce such a situation where they're in control from making until you watching the movie at home.

That was a conflict of intrests and as you say wrong. But it has very little to do with what I am talking about. Sorry. As for trying to control the video all the way upto and into your home you are correct. But don't you think that piracy has some bearing and clout here? Our actions pirating their media "are" being used here in America against us to justify just what you describe and more.

Originally posted by Doom9
Remember the Betamax decision? or remeber DIVX? There's a history of studios trying to control distribution as far as possible. DIVX failed so now instead of trying another technical measure to keep tabs of which movie is being watched when and where they go the legal way... make DIVX (in form of DRM chips in every device) the law then nobody has the option of not buying it (so it has to succeed).

Betamax died because there was more VHS content and VHS was more popular. DIVX died out because there are better alternatives. But the media companies in an effort to provide absolute protection from those pirating and such are out to close off all popular and better alternatives as you describe. You don't think it is in part due to digital piracy and piracy in general?

Originally posted by Doom9
at that time nobody knew how DAT would develop.. it wasn't designed as copy protection for high end devices.. it was an overall solution. The mere fact that later on DCC, MD and recordable CDs (you can still find audio CD-Rs and Philips and some others still sell these devices) all contain SMCS as well shows that. And even nowadays, Sony's key2audio copy protection for audio CDs also makes use of SCMS.. they set the SCMS flag to "no copy" thus screwing everybody who bought a MiniDisc or other digital audio recorder to make backups of their CDs as the advertisement suggested (couple of years back Sony was advertising MD as ideal solution to create your own compilation.. now they're screwing the people stupid enough to believe in those ads).

I agree that they are wrong and evil. But can you honestly say that piracy analog or digital played no roll here?

Originally posted by Doom9
that doesn't necessarily have to be so. I still recall my Napster experience where I, since I had a proper collection (sorted by albums, files properly named, all with ID3 tags) was getting ripped off by all the leechers (nobody shared a good collection but everybody is leeching off people who have a good collection... ) and I know the problem some of my friends using p2p services are having.. so if you give me a choice to download a CD as properly done MP3s and authorized by the studio I would rather pay than go to the p2p trouble again. If you want to download the latest MTV top 20 p2p might be good enough for you but the less mainstream your music taste is the harder it is to create a good collection just downloading from the net.. but maybe I just don't have enough criminal energy in me.

I hear ya there.

Originally posted by Doom9
But my point is that piracy is a question of how much effort it requires and how much the legal alternative cost. Add a reasonably fair copy protection scheme into this and I think you're much closer to a feasible solution than all the xyzab laws that are being proposed now. For instance.. I think the SCMS copy protection scheme is reasonably fair.. if you own your audio CD you can make copies of it.. but you cannot copy the copies anymore.. that makes sense from a fair use point of view since if you're the legal owner you can make your copies but if you give these copies to a friend he/she cannot make any more copies thus stopping exponential duplication. Of course that is not the solution to everything since we have to throw computers into the mix as well.. but the solution has to be a compromise between the end user and the content provider and not a complete end user rights forfeit as it's being proposed now.

Why are you telling me this I agree 100% That is not the reason I wished to discuss this. No matter how low the media distributors drop their prices there will always be those who will not pay as long as they can get it free. Doobie is a very vocal self proclaimed member of said group.


Originally posted by Doom9
last but not least.. I think I've shown the content provider's trail.. their goal is complete control over distribution. Piracy is not the reason why they are pushing DRM now... they've always wanted that as it fits into the control scheme. All that piracy is is a convenient excuse to try yet another movie to abolish end user rights. I have serious doubts that we wouldn't be seeing the exact same law proposal and technical measures if piracy stopped from one day to another. On the other hand the whole robin hood rhetorics is nothing but a convenient excuse for people to take without paying for it. Some simply don't want to pay for music, some can't afford it and still want to have a collection.

Whatever their reason is you can not argue that piracy is not a good tool for them. I agree with you that they want total control. And those like Doobie who pirate in rebellion in hope of changing things for the better are actually handing media distributors the key to their wet dreams. That is what I am really at.

What I am trying to come to here is a common understanding. Piracy is wrong and unjustifyable. The corporations are very wrong but due to the piracy are very justifyable. This is self destructive. And Doobie is out to promote escalation of such behavior. I love the video compression sceen and movies to much to let such thoughts go unchallenged and to be adopted by those in the public with weak minds/morals.

I am under the assumption that most of us here are here to do the best backups of "our" DVDs that we can. To learn and exchange knowledge with other people of similar mind. Doobie's words if held by himself and taken to heart by others stand to destroy things as they are today and make them worse for those of us here in America if not the world. The media distributors are out to get us. But this piracy is making it to easy for them.

May the DVD backup sceen never die and may the pirates note the error of their ways. I wish everyone the best in what is shaping up to be the dark days ahead.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by mikemikez
In again one of your famous claims you state that piracy is the cause of all the problems. Aren't you again being a bit too polarised on this one? How come you always have to play on the man or TRY to insult people?

Am I polarized or are you and Doobie. Go ahead and damn me because I can put myself in the shoes of the content creators and see the bigger picture. Doom9 sees this bigger picture for the most part. But people like Doobie and perhaps you are committed to this selfish self destructive behavior known as pirating.

Originally posted by mikemikez
The problem Neo Neko is that large corporations don't allow the existance of small ones in sectors like this! Besides, large monopolies or cartels will always charge exactly that amount of money that will optimize their profit or turnover, whatever is more imortant to them at that stage.

Much of the best most recognized content of late has come from the small independant players contrary to what you say. I agree that the big companies are out to put them out of business. But how exactly do you see piracy as stopping the big companies and helping the independants? Because it does not. You want to really help? Stop justifying them and take legal action to counter the weak legal actions they put forth.

Originally posted by mikemikez
Anyway, I'm looking forward to the moment when every single movie that has ever been published on DVD will be stored on a single carrier and will be distributed by people like me for costprice.

That is a nice dream, but that is all it will ever be. You have no rights to distribution. Even if the big companies are out to overcharge. What I am looking foreward to is the moment when the media companies can no longer pass legislation to trample my rights. The moment where media companies can no longer use things like piracy to push their twisted designs. The moment when the legislative boddies collectively laugh at the media companies for their unfounded over reaction and over zealous attitude to control everything.

Originally posted by mikemikez
Yes, that will make the new movie marketing even more agressive but they will never be able to make the cinema twice or three times as expensive because people will simply not visit it anymore and power will go to the smaller movie makers just like what's happening in music industry rightnow.

No what you outline if sucessful will obliterate the market for everyone. There is no reform going on in the music industry. Wake up.


Originally posted by mikemikez
You said you wanted our opinion Neo but next time, please be a bit more straightforward and just write down YOUR opinion right away instead of posting an open topic and afterwards claiming it with your huge, subjective, one sided and often even insulting replies.


Mike

Obviously you did not read the post that spawned this thread. Typical. I stated that from the beginning. And I was very aware that my views might be challenged. I find it funny now that you whine when yours are challenged. :) I came to here and to HA to escape the unobjective thinking that people like you and Doobie champion over at Divx.com. Don't you know that Divx.com and most everyone on the forums are considdered laughingstock? I have been asked many times how I have the patience to put up with what passes there. I just sit and smile knowingly. :) Quite possibly I might have massochistic tendencies.

[mikemikez]

Neo,

Not only the forummembers at divx.com are "laughingstock", so are all people downloading their codec just because they heard the name DivX before!

But it was you and many other people at divx.com that have kept the LIE alive and thereby making people into "laughingstock".

Anyway, from a commercial point of view divx networks is very rapidly turning out to be "laugingstock" themselves and I must say that gives me quite some pleasure.:)
Or am I wrong? Was divx networks an even bigger scam and actually just a really smart way of the MPEGLA to push their standard?


About music industry:

There definately is huge changes going on there! The big distributers are focussing more and more on throw away music like house, rap and r&b. The real artists are getting more and more convinced of spreading their music in some alternative way.

Mike

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by mikemikez
Not only the forummembers at divx.com are "laughingstock", so are all people downloading their codec just because they heard the name DivX before!

No they are called newbicus maximus. Even seasoned encoders still download the Divx codecs though. Personally I think you are quite closed minded when it comes to anything other than MSMPEG4.

Originally posted by mikemikez
But it was you and many other people at divx.com that have kept the LIE alive and thereby making people into "laughingstock".


There is no "lie" going on over there. Other than the Divx used to be opendivx ones I have seen you agreeing with. Whatever may be going on at Divx.com I still visit to help the other visitors and reffute the missinformation that people like Doobie try to spread. The same I can not say for you. Sorry.

Originally posted by mikemikez
Anyway, from a commercial point of view divx networks is very rapidly turning out to be "laugingstock" themselves and I must say that gives me quite some pleasure.:)
Or am I wrong? Was divx networks an even bigger scam and actually just a really smart way of the MPEGLA to push their standard?


Don't count them out yet. I do not like some of the things they have done in the past. But I have yet to see them do anything wrong. Can I ask you a question? Why do you even go there? You don't encode or have any encoding related knowledge. You have no business there. All you do there is cause descent. Actually alot of the same things could be said here. I don't begrudge you going there. But I have to wonder.



Originally posted by mikemikez
About music industry:

There definately is huge changes going on there! The big distributers are focussing more and more on throw away music like house, rap and r&b. The real artists are getting more and more convinced of spreading their music in some alternative way.

Mike

I have not seen any prolifferation of house. Actually I would like a bit of that. But there is an overly large ammount of hip-hop, fake r&b, and the crap that is now being called rap being pushed. Those I don't like. But I have yet to see a single artist let alone many exploring major distribution through alternative methods

Remember artists are artists. Not business men. What you describe will never occur in large numbers if at all. If something like this were to happen there would have to be a business man behind it providing services exactly the same as distribution companies are now. The current distribution companies could see this and take advantage of this if only people like yourself were not using the same technology to alienate them. If only people like yourself were actually striving to bring about change rather than trying to justify the selfish actions of piracy. Piracy solves nothing.

[phamilton]

Piracy is theft, and that is that. Obtaining a copy of something improperly is no different from helping yourself to an item from a shop without paying. The fact that you think the manufacturer charges too much is no excuse - he made it and can ask what he likes for it, you have the right not to buy if the conditions don't suit.

The usual argument for copyright is that if there is no money in creating such things (because people make unauthorised copies) the incentive to create them disappears, creativity is not rewarded and ceases, and society is the poorer. Pretty valid really, even if it means you must go without things you cannot afford to pay for.

[MfA]

Hmmm ask the shopkeeper if he'd rather have me steal one of his CDs or copy it, there is something quite obviously different there.

[theReal]

Another comparison is better, I think: grocery stores that throw away food because it is too old to be sold but still perfectly ok to eat usually lock their trash-containers so that nobody will take this food for free. They think that someone who takes food out of their trash cans for free will of course come and buy food if he can't get into the trashcans.

I mean this doesn't really apply to us Europeans/North Americans who have enough money to buy DVDs, but it does apply to Asia, where people can't spend their monthly wages on one original DVD...

[avih]

If someone breaks into my house and steals my CDs, who calls the cops, me or the music industry?" Safir asked. "If it's me, then that's my property.

and i add, would the studios give me a new cd in such a case? as i payed for the right to listen, didn't i??

sort of a crosspost (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29422), but really belongs to this thread. taken from this (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/26275.html) article from the register.

and this:
What happens when a large number of people no longer accept this "copyright bargain?" As John Perry Barlow of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has asked, what happens when a majority of Internet citizens believe file sharing isn't wrong, despite attempts at laws to the contrary? If a majority of citizens are disobeying a law, is there a problem with the people or the law?

from this article at newsforge: http://newsforge.com/newsforge/02/07/18/1644212.shtml?tid=19

couldn't be more related to this thread...

[JAG_ENTERPRISE]

I feel piracy is wrong, however I feel being able to own a backup is not. I own a website where I sell DVD backup movies. From time to time I get complaints saying that I am just a pirate and a thief. I feel this is just wrong, I simply provide a service where people can purchase backup movies of movies they say they already own, so that they do not have to use the original and can preserve it. I do believe that if you own a DVD movie that you legaly bought, you are allowed a backup copie of that movie strictly for yourself only. If you sell the original copie, you must also destroy the backup.
But I feel if you do not own the original already, and are getting a backup that it is just wrong. What is your guys opinions of backup movies?

[chainsaw135]

Originally posted by JAG_ENTERPRISE
I feel piracy is wrong, however I feel being able to own a backup is not. I own a website where I sell DVD backup movies. From time to time I get complaints saying that I am just a pirate and a thief. I feel this is just wrong, I simply provide a service where people can purchase backup movies of movies they say they already own, so that they do not have to use the original and can preserve it. I do believe that if you own a DVD movie that you legaly bought, you are allowed a backup copie of that movie strictly for yourself only. If you sell the original copie, you must also destroy the backup.
But I feel if you do not own the original already, and are getting a backup that it is just wrong. What is your guys opinions of backup movies?

Its people like you who make a profit off there copies, that makes it hard on people that just wanna back up there own. I hate to say that but its the truth, i can't believe your trying or making money off of your copies how bogus. I guess laws in japan are different but i feel your ripping off me and the others that live in a country that makes alot of movies that are carried in other countries. just my 2 cents.

[theReal]

I do believe that if you own a DVD movie that you legaly bought, you are allowed a backup copie of that movie strictly for yourself only.Well, exactly. But that's not what you're doing!

[Neo Neko]

Ugh. Well it has been educational. Which has been my intent all along. Not here to troll folks. I guess it is safe to say that piracy = theft is at least a moral call for me. But it is also safe to say that most everyone here would agree that piracy is bad. And by piracy I do not mean backing up your CD or DVD. That is not piracy. I realize that this is a sensitive subject to many people. But I think it does do us good to talk in civil tones on such subjects. Better than hiding it from scrutiny. Of late though things have gotten a bit less civil with baggage being broght from elsewhere. Kind of defeating my purpose in bringing this here in the first place. I thank doom9 and everyone else for their input and I will continue to mull it over and do independant research on the subject. This is a very tricky subject. And it is very tricky to keep ballenced views on. I am only in this with the best intrests of the "sceen" at heart. But at this time I would like to ask Ookami or a super mod to lock this down unless they see justification to do otherwise.


Have fun. Keep on ripping. I'm out. :)

[Ookami]

> This is a very tricky subject. And it is very tricky to keep ballenced views on. I am only in this with the best intrests of the "sceen" at heart. But at this time I would like to ask Ookami or a super mod to lock this down unless they see justification to do otherwise

Yep, it is a very tricky subject. Hint, do a search for artcomm and Bugs Bunny... I was invoveld in that thread, also. Therefore I don't even read such threads anymore (apart from my mod duties, but that's different).

It is something wich are many people interestet and everyone here has a opinion about.

And another thing, Neo Neko, are you a professional writer or something. I've never seen a short posting made by you? How do you manage this (apart from the fact that your spelling and grammar seem to be above average)? :)

Cheers,

Mijo.