Piracy. Theft or not?

[Neo Neko]

This message is posted on both the hydrogenaudio forums and the doom9 forums in the general/off topic sections. I know that by posting here I can expect more objective and intelligent responses.

Recently I have been noticing alot of discrepancies with my reality and the reality of the forum dwellers over at Divx.com. Let's not get into this "They live in a fantasy world" mode. I would like some good insight and opinion on this topic. And this topic is this -> "Is piracy theft or not". I don't mean in the strictest terms as in someone breaking into your house and robbing you. But in the most generic definition of the term. I am not out to debate the effects of piracy either. I would simply like a consesus of intelligent opinion on this.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

My thoughts are thus. Piracy is theft. As such I am a thief when I pirate. I am no better than anyone else. Piracy is theft because something is stollen. It does not matter how abstract that "something" is. It is still a theft. Some one, somewhere along the lines gets hurt by piracy. It does not matter if it is we the consumer or those in the corporations. Someone suffers even if it is in a small way. It is possible to steal by coppying. Ideas can be stolen without taking the original. The same goes for music, videos, and software. If you obtian something by illegal means you have helped to facilitate theft and are therefore a thief yourself.

Piracy is theft because Pirates are high seas thievs, and piracy is named for Pirates. The analogy fits.

If piracy is not theft in one way or another then why is it wrong?

I encourage everyone to reply with their opinion whether or not it repeats someone elses. I wish to either provide them with proof of the fact or to correct my thinking if by some fluke I am shown wrong.

[bb]

To me the issue is similar to "Am I fighting in the resistance or am I a terrorist?". Ok, this is much exaggerated, but maybe you get the point.

bb

[Acaila]

I agree that piracy=theft, however because of the outrageous prices of many of todays products I admit to being guilty to piracy myself on occasion. Some things are just not worth the amount of money they charge you, however useful it may be.

[trbarry]

I think laws and legal rights are instituted (indirectly) by members of society by common agreement, supposedly by and for the common good. Those legal rights have included the right to own things, which in turn gives a great but not infinite right to make choices about how those things will be utilized.

But the laws of abstract things like intellectual property are not entirely consistant or easy to understand. And there is a perception that many of those laws have been passed in smoke filled rooms, behind locked doors, and without the real knowledge of many of the people who would be most penalized by them. And as the practice and enforcement of those laws starts to affect the general public there is also something of a feeling that maybe we have been had by special interests in ways that would not have passed a popular vote if done by the light of day.

And maybe there is also a suspicion that the intellectual property owners are possibly claiming a bit more rights than even the literal text of the law would support. It may be in their interests to claim these rights but it certainly has the power to backlash upon them.

So some folks will call other folks "pirates" and equate what they are doing to theft, even when the actual offense might be only a civil liability or breach of contract. More recently one media industry VP tried to label it "stealing" to skip commercials on your Tivo. What kind of popular support will that one get?

I personally believe that only the public distribution of copyrighted material should be illegal, not just the act of copying.

For instance:
... the idea that the right of reproduction as an exclusive right granted to the copyright owner is illogical and improper as applied to digital works. What, then, should the alternative principle be? We argue that the alternative principle is already part of existing law; it is public distribution of instantiations of a work that is the key right granted to a copyright holder.
see Taking the Copy out of Copyright (http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/jf/MF.pdf) at Yale Law School.

But even if there is the possibility I may use my computers or computer skills to commit a crime I don't believe some group has the right to position a rent-a-cop to live in my house and thwart me. And I also don't believe that anyone has the legal right to cripple my home computer just because they are concerned about its general purpose ability to process media.

So yes, the taking of intellectual (or other) property without due compensation is probably wrong, but the legal remedies and rhetoric about this have gotten way out of hand.

- Tom

[avih]

imo, piracy IS a theft, and everyone that's doing it should be mature enough to face the possible consequences.

BUT, there's a but.

i just think that some of the licenses/laws are just completely illegal/immoral. and i wanna fight these. we can't live in anarchy, and there MUST be a law. the law is there to be as a guideline for moral activity, in a way of strict definition (and there's no other way than strict definition, or it would be interpreted, and we can't trust everyone to interpret it 'correctly').

buttom line: for the law it is a theft, and as long as you agree to the law as the 'method'. i know this, but i'm not going to abide to laws which, in my oppinion are immoral. and i'm willing to handle the consequences. what we should do here (and i admitt i don't do it myself) is try to fight these laws. unfortunately, everything turns around money. money -> influence -> laws to your advantage. and this situation sucks.

cheers
avi

ps
i don't pirate dvd, since i don't have a dvd drive. does capturing from tv considered a theft???

[mpucoder]

It's interesting to me, reading this, to see different definitions of piracy emerging. I have always used the term for someone who makes illegal copies for the purpose of profit. Maybe my close association with entertainers formed that definition, which includes "bootleg albums". So, to me, it was always clear that piracy was stealing.
It has also been equally clear to me that copies made for personal use, or as backups (and I mean that literally when it comes to media used in public performance) were fair use. The DMCA goes too far, the proposed law (Fritz's law, whatever alphabet soup they use for it today) makes the absurd assumption that technology capable of theft will be used only for theft.

[diji1]

i don't care about corporations. corporations don't care about me. i conduct myself in a manner that i think will benefit my life, as do corporations when considered as entities and having "lives". getting something for less money than i might otherwise have paid for it is a benefit for me as with any other thief ...
but let's think about something ... if i broke into the neighbour's flat next door and stole say some money, her tv and video, i am thieving scum. morally i would consider myself that. that neighbour prolly did nothin to me did nothing to me. otoh, corporation culture is having a really bad effect on the film and music industry with the current structures that are in place. most films and music these days is just commoditised, sanitised rubbish designed for us consumers to get cheap thrills from whatever the _kewlest_ thing out there is before we move onto the next piece of garbage. low risk boredom made to pull in maximum money from the masses. thats especially true of the us film industry imho. so yes i consider myself a thief if i steal/pirate ( never for money, ever ), but i feel no remorse. i support what i like but i certainly don't miss out on anything else.

[tenebrenz]

Imo, the problem is that nothing is black and white. There are different levels of morality and people that want to takes things too far in either direction. There are people that use "the law" to do the most immoral things.
If I hum a song while waiting to catch a bus am I doing wrong as I am not paying the composer royalties? I would like to think not.

I have bought 100's of cds in my life but I have downloaded many rare songs from Audiogalaxy (when it worked) which are not available to purchase but are obviously copyrighted. If I had not downloaded I would never have heard them. I don't feel like I have acted wrongly but many would argue I have.

I have also downloaded many mp3s which are available to buy but from bands that I hadn't heard of before and aren't played on the radio / mtv. From this I have purchased lots of cds by the ones that I liked, didn't buy any albums from the ones I didn't. Have I acted wrongly? This one is more questionable but I feel that buy purchasing the stuff I like, as I can afford it, I am justified. Now that audiogalaxy has been closed by the riaa I will probably buy less music as I can't go into a music shop and spend all day trying out their stock.

Movie wise, I own 200+ dvds (no pirates) lots of vhs (original) and lots of tv recordings. I only rip my own dvds for backup purposes and nothing else. Why, to learn about encoding and stuff. Am I still doing wrong as I have seen the warning on the disk that says "no copying" The same goes for my entire cd collection which is backed up to mp3s and played on my RioVolt.

Should copyright law be different for different mediums. By UK Law I am allowed to walk into a library and photocopy sections (not whole) of a book I do not own. Is the author / publisher loosing out here, is this morally wrong and am I depriving them of their royalties.

What about people that live in countries where there is not enough money to buy things, should they never have music, films, etc or is it acceptable for them to trade in copies. I think it is acceptable. What about people that are just poor anyway, myself I was unemployed for a long time in the past, so most of my music was stuff copied from friends. Now that I am working I have bought the CDs as I feel I owe it to the artists involved. But I didn't feel bad when copying, I was not a potential buyer anyway.

I think copying for monetary gain is wrong, people that take from the system and never want to put anything back (you know the "i don't have to buy anything anymore as I can download all I want for free" type) are wrong.

If the governments would spend more money catching murderes, rapist and generally funding public services and education then I think the world would be a better place, whereas putting a "Police Officer" in my pc to stop me making an XviD of "Nosferatu" for my own use will not.

[Neo Neko]

Well the guys over at HA have you all beat for quantity so far. But I think you guys win for quality.

I don't believe what the corporations are dooing is right. But I also do not believe what the average pirate is dooing is right. When I say average pirate I mean those who obtain copyrighted materials through illegal means with no intent to purchase. Many of the guys over at HA brought up the fact that most of us there pirate with a future intent to purchase. But even with that in mind I do still have a dilemma with this. I do not want to split hairs or hold double standards. So even if I go out and buy a copy I still considder myself just as bad as them for having pirated in the first place at all.

Many of them over at HA brought up the fact that pirating is not really a proper term. But to me neither is file sharring. As part of those accused then we need to devise a more fitting term for this.

[Doobie]

According to trbarry’s Yale Law link: “Copyright is not a right of the author by reason of his creation. Copyright is not a Lockean ‘natural right’ but is a limited right granted to authors in order to further the public interest. This principle is explicitly expressed in the U.S. Constitution.”

The Constitution is clear that copyright law has nothing to do with alleged ownership or theft. Copyright law exists only for the benefit of society, not to protect any imaginary rights of content creators. That is, copyright law exists so I can have more music and movies, not so any content creator can make money. Anyone but a bonehead should be able to understand this.

It is also a simple concept, even if beyond the grasp of a bonehead, that theft is depriving a man of something that is his. Copyright infringement is not theft because the content creator is deprived of nothing that is rightfully his. My money is not rightfully his in the first place and he still has everything he had before the alleged theft.

If copying content without paying is theft, then it’s as much theft the day after the copyright protection expired as it was theft the day before. Thankfully for boneheads, their idiocy spares them the feelings of guilt they should have if they could logically follow through on their argument.

The big reason it matters if copying without compensation is theft is because that dictates the details of copyright law. The brainwashed boneheads have bought the RIAA’s et al. claim that “piracy” is theft and so they support draconian copyright law that harms society, even if the brainwashed boneheads are a bunch of hypocrites who freely violate copyright law. They have no choice to be hypocrites because their unconstitutional and immoral position is unworkable.

Only someone who rejects the stupid lie that “piracy is theft” can reasonably talk about copyright law, such as should it be legal to quote a passage in a book for a book review (Fair Use). In my estimation, non-commercial copying and sharing of any copyrighted work should also be legal.

PS: If you’re asking why I’m calling names, I think it’s more polite to call names now than to get personal in replies to boneheads who ignore the reasoning I’ve presented and reply with what amounts to “Piracy is too theft!”

[NeVeRLiFt]

I dont know what to say... I live on mirc and private networks... I download 24/7 :devil: then burn to cd.
I'm not rich and have a family to support, and I want stuff. This allows me to have every new game and app or movie that I want.
I dont care if its wrong I'm Chaotic Good and do whats best for me.

[Nightweaver]

I think 'piracy' and 'theft' aren't that applicable here, which is I guess going against most people. I just don't think that stealing possible profit is really stealing - I mean, who says that people who buy or download this stuff would've gone to the cinema or bought the proper DVD if it wasn't available ... in a lot of poorer countries, they wouldn't for the simple reason they can't afford it.

For me, a closer analogy is, I guess, bootlegging or counterfeiting - even though there's some obvious flaws with both. It's still not legal, but I don't think this would ever be legal ... it just seems to fit a little better in my mind.

I really can't see it as theft when I can hold a legally purchased DVD in one hand and that movie on CD in another. How can I have stolen when what I 'stole' is still right where it was before the 'theft'?

Edit: Took a while to post, and saw Doobie's post just then (Neo's was the last post when I hit 'Reply') ... I think he hits it spot on.

[Neo Neko]

All this piracy does generate false demand though. Even if you do not go out and ever buy a copy. The companies see the trading of their content without consent as a form of demand. A demand that they want to tap into. But they are not going to alter their methods to tap into it. They are going to alter ours. As that article that Doobie linked to in the Divx.com forums clearly show they give the faesad of change when it is we that change and for them it will be business as usual. Prices will not really drop and in fact their profits will rise. I want real change and piracy is not a tool for this change.

Doobie. Fanatics can interprit the bible to mean any number of things. That does not mean they are right. The same can be doen with the Koran hence terrorists. Both you and the corporations have veered away from the copyright laws true intent in my eyes. You are both destructive to the industry. If anything is worth having it is worth paying for and paying it's creator for. Doobie you want everything for free and couldn't give a shit about any hard work that went into it. I say your boss should treat you the same way. When it comes down to it we the public are an unwiting boss to the media industries. If we do not want it they can't sell it. We could honestly change things if we could bring this realization to you and the corporations. Empowerment of the consumer could snap them in line in a heart beat. Piracy is not consumer empowerment. Niether you or anyone else could prove that it is. Theft or not piracy is wrong and illegal. And in the end your whole stance or view is flawed Doobie.

What is the good in having 500+ movies you will at best mostly watch only once. How about thousands of albums that put you in the same position? I have friends with FTP sites. I could have downloaded and watched Episode 2 and MIB 2 a month before they were released. I can still download them. But I have not and will not. Call me overly moral but I fail to see the need or purpose. Even if I am overly moral you position is horribly flawed and weak. I came here to escape your fanaticism Doobie and to get some objective opinion. And so far the consensus is against you. If you can quit the name calling and provide irrefutable proof that can not be interperited in the wrong way that people should not get paid for their work, and that the world owes you everything I will listen. That is the basic gist of what you have said so far.

I am just searching for the middle ground. So that I may be as close to the truth as possible.

[trbarry]

So it seems most would agree that it would be nice to live in a world where creators of useful stuff would somehow get rewarded for it, and make more.

And at least some folks would probably agree that the cost of enforcing a law (or moral dictate) should not exceed the social benefits derived.

Anybody have any ideas about a workable compromise for the next few decades?

- Tom

[avih]

compromise is hard for the film industry, since they invest multi million $ on a film, and they intend to get it back by selling dvds and to theaters... but with the music industry, i say let the producers/creators sell their stuff through the net for $2 per album, so they'll get twice than what they get today per sold album, and we'll earn all the resellers and record companies profit which is 95% of what we pay nowdays. easier said than done though..

[Nightweaver]

One very good example that explains how I feel a lot of the time is the movie Forrest Gump - well, not the movie itself, but the making of it. I saw an article a while ago (too long to remember where, sorry) about how after all the costs and cuts for 'lost profit' and whatever the hell else the film company behind it could come up with, Winston Groom, the author of the book the film was based on, got absolutely nothing in royalties! That makes me pretty sick ... and keep in mind, this was a movie that came out well before the movie ripping scene was as big as it is now.

What exactly did paramount (i think it was) do, other than throw money at the film? Crap all ... so why the hell should I be paying them once they've more than covered the initial loan?

The music industry's not much better. Those artists I like, I like because I think they're good, and I want to reward them for giving me something I like, and a little something to thank whatever record company they're under for getting them to my attention, if they did that.

If I could, I'd buy my DVD direct from the film maker and pay a fair, uninflated price. The financiers of the film can get their money back from cinema sales and bugger off so I can put my money where I think it belongs. Just try getting the MPAA/RIAA to agree to that, though.

Oh, and avih, I agree with you - except when you say the film industry is trying to get it's money back. If the film's a major success, they have their money back after the first week in the cinema - you can tell that from the ticket sales figures.

[Neo Neko]

We are getting off topic by nitpicking specifics. This topic was meant to be as generic as possible so we would not end up in a flame war over specifics.

Let's get back to this. The topic is "Is piracy theft?", if not what is it?! Why is it wrong. The consensus is that it is wrong. The only person here who will dispute that piracy is wrong is Doobie. But his views are indefensable. The piracy of which I speak is not covered by any existing laws to any extent. Technology is almost always ahead of the law. So existing law can not be used to ultimatly prove or disprove any of these arguments. We are in uncharted territory here. The wilds of the net.

[Nightweaver]

I'll summarise my view now, you can agree with it or not.

Piracy is theft. That much is obvious. Someone owns something, and you are taking it against their will for your own personal gain, and that's wrong.

Where I differ is that I fail to see how copying a DVD or anything similar can possibly be called piracy. It's not 'theft of intellectual property' even, because you're not claiming it as your own work ... nobody copies The Matrix, for example, and claims to have filmed it.

Not being stealing doesn't make it inherently right, though. I'm not even gonna try and claim that. Copying doesn't cost them anything - copying music CDs (in the US at least) actually profits them, since the RIAA collects a tax from all blank CDs sold. Loss of potential profit is not a cost, it's just not a profit.

[diji1]

well said night weaver

[UGAthecat]

basically, I agree that piracy is theft.
I understand that some people see piracy as being Robin Hood to some extent, and others support it for other reasons (like my long-axe rant here - http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28883 ).

I think if you really want to be a Robin Hood to bring down corrupt companies though, you should do it by gathering support in your community to get the govt to provide more fair pricing. Also, with matters like the DMCA, if the majority of the people that express an opinion in a congressman or senator's district/state express their interest in opposition to the proposed law, that representative MUST vote with the people, or they can be kicked out by that majority, and I'm pretty sure their vote can be negated. They are elected to serve OUR interests, not the interests of corporations, all we have to do is get our families and friends to speak up with us and they will support us.

So, if you wanna robin hood against the corruption of the industries, do it by 'robbing' govt representatives away from the 'rich' industries, and give them back to the 'poor' communities.

[resonator]

I think piracy is theft.

I think even the most disgusting corporations in this world actually HAVE rights and deserve to be payed if i choose to use one of their products. If I hate a corporation I don't buy one of their products, still I don't use it, as that's the essence of a boycott. Downloading stuff from the net is not boycott, it's theft.

To me the whole "Robin Hood" babble is complete bullshit. One of the premises of the "Robin Hood" legend would be "giving it to the poor", but I just can't see that many poor guys with DSL or cable modems and flat-rate contracts. It's just a cheap excuse to legitimate the thievery, IMHO.

However, I'm a thief myself. I strictly don't copy music, because I can very well live without the stuff that's IMO not worth the buy, yet I do rip rented DVDs to SVCDs. Shame on me. I do own about 70 DVDs though.

[theReal]

I think copying a DVD for my own private use is not really theft, because in my opinion theft somehow involves that I take something from someone and then he doesn't have it anymore. Like when someone steals a CD from a store, the store can't sell this CD anymore and has definitely lost the money. If I only copy the CD, the store still has all of his copies and can sell them. It's also, like someone said before, not stealing intellectual property because everybody who copies audio cd's usually puts the name of the author in every single one of the files.

[ppera2]

It was a big noise about movie Spider-man. Man think: I must see it. But no DVD for now, so must go in theatre. But I was busy those days when it played in my local theatre. So what choice I have ? Get pirate DivX and watch it. After watching this peace of sh... I'm glad that they didn't earn anything from me. - This is only one argument.
Situation with software is often even worse. There is lot of expensive software what work not good, not how is promised.

If they want to decrease or stop piracy they must produce better wares for lower price... There are other ways too, but it is for theme: Orwell, 2002.

[Doom9]

in lights of the basic idea of the copyright act, that is benefiting society as a whole and not only authors I think the analogy piracy = theft is a bit too simple. By copying a movie/audio CD you're not robbing the author. But on the other hand he'll not get the money he was supposed to get as there's now one additional copy of his creation out there. Neither is it robbing the movie / record studio, distributors, etc. It's just a potential income that you don't get. movies/audio CDs are not distributed as regular physical products are.. you don't acquire a movie and you own it.. you have been given a license to use it under certain conditions.. and a license can be revoked. My definition of stealing, which admittedly might sound a bit blueeyed in the internet age, is taking a physically existing thing without having the owners consent. So if you take a CD in a record store without paying that's theft. But if you buy that CD and make a copy at home that's something else.

Does that mean that copying is okay? No. It is wrong. Besides the piece of plastic you acquire a license. That license gives you the right to do certain things.. listen/watch to the creation in private, give it to your friends, watch it with your family, and by the definition of fair use make copies for close friends / family. If you go outside the definition of the license you might get sued.
However, since a license is a rather flexible term, breaking it may be wrong in the eyes of the law but not in terms of common sense. Take a copy protected computer program for instance. Copyright law usually specifically grants you the right to make a backup copy. Yet on the CD it says that you may not make a copy. Imho copyright law should void the no copy passage of the license and you should be allowed to make a backup copy. Just as a real world example.. I bought C&C RA2 when it came out.. the packaging was made so that after a while one of the 2 CDs got scratched beyond reason.. without CloneCD, one of the programs that the BSA would like to make illegal, I would've had to return the disc and pay for a replacement.. using CloneCD I was able to circumvent the copy protection mechanism and make a copy which is legitimate under my country's copyright law.

Now.. the MPAA/RIAA/BSA always come to the press giving them huge numbers about their "losses" due to piracy. They call people copying their works pirates and thieves and compare them to burglars breaking into your house. If you copy a CD you are not breaking into Sony's vault and take out $20 so the comparison is wrong. It's just some money Sony doesn't make. So, once again the piracy = theft equation does not hold. And to take this even further.. who says that if people who copy would actually buy the stuff if they couldn't copy? My claim is that if copying was not possible studios would make more money, but not as much as they claim they lose every year, far from it. How can you expect a poor student to buy a multiple thousand $ software? He simply can't. However, once he gets out of university and gets a good job he will no longer feel motivated to go searching for warez and just buys the stuff.. I think we all agree that copying something usually involves a lot more work than acquiring it legally. Especially when it comes to DVDs, but also rare computer software. And with audio CD copy protection even copying audio CDs is becoming more complicated. All of you who use p2p tools know how hard it can be to get a good copy of something. When Napster was still online and I had a 2.5mbit line I used it quite a lot for some time.. but eventually I got frustrated. You have to look up a track list for an album at amazon, look for every song, make sure you get the same bitrate, then change filenames so all are consistend, add proper id3 tags, etc. It was a lot more work than asking a friend for that CD and rip it on my own so eventually I gave up and I've never used any p2p tools ever since.

With CTPDA (or whatever the name), DMCA and Co MPAA/RIAA/BSA try to outlaw private copying and basically can put you in prison for just making a backup copy of a DVD/CD/Software you own. This is ridiculous. Clearly this has nothing to do with either piracy or theft.. in fact it is theft asking the legal owner of a movie license to buy another DVD. Imagine you have kids.. put them into a room with a Playstation and 10 games. Then in the evening once they've gone to bed check out the CDs... you won't find a single one that is still unscratched (unless these kids are clones of myself.. I have 10 year old CDs that still lack any scratches but I find myself in a very small minority when it comes to properly treating CDs/DVDs). Should it not be a parents right to make a backup copy? Should you not be able to make a copy of your favorite album to listen to in your car while on your way to work? I strongly believe so and any law to the contrary is sponsored by professional thieves..

And now to cover yet another aspect.. people who copy and then sell. Now this imho is quite another class. These people are thieves in some sense as they sell something to (unsuspecting?) people while cheating the copyright owner out of their cut.

It's all a matter of proportions really.. and Hollywood Hollings, Mr Valenti, Mrs Rosen, etc are going way too far with their proposals. It's no longer about protecting copyright.. it's about once again getting the whole distribution chain under their control. And the piracy = theft analogy these people use to try and enforce these laws upon us are way too oversimplified to reflect upon reality.

[mpucoder]

I couldn't agree more. However, as I tried to say in my first post, it sounds like there are many definitions of piracy. I don't consider my fair use copies to be stolen, or pirated. But those Chinese knockoffs are.

[theReal]

I also agree with the P2P thing. Even with good p2p software like direct connect and a 20mbit LAN connection, getting exactly what you want in good quality is a day job. If you want to keep things downloading, you have to pick every .avi that you find and try to d/l it. Then you always have to check if it's still working, find other users to resume broken downloads, compare filesizes, fix broken avis...
In the end, most movies you get are not those you wanted, but those you just happened to get.

So, with a lot of work, you can get quite some movies - but I really don't have the time to work on p2p downloading for a week without pause. If you don't work on it constantly and just let it run, you will end up with hundreds of people downloading stuff from you, but you wont get a single file (well, maybe one, but that's it)

[UGAthecat]

I also do not consider fair use copies of something you already have a copy of piracy or theft. If anyone does consider that piracy they really should re-examine their definition of piracy.
Copyright law definitely gives the copyright holder no absolute power over the copying and distribution of their copyrighted item. Here in the USA there are clauses in the copyright law that force copyright requestors to submit several copies of the item they want protected to the Library of Congress. The copies that are in the Library of Congress can be re-copied and redistributed to other federal, state, and local government run libraries without any reimbursement to the copyright holder. If you put enough demand on your local public library to do so, they could get a copy of the 35mm film reels for Episode 2 or Spider-Man, and you could check these copies out just like you check out a book! This is just an example of how the copyright holder does not have absolute power, and is not required by law to be reimbursed for every copy

[theReal]

As you mention libraries: at the uni library, there are dozens of high-powered copy machines that are used 12 hours a day for copying parts of books or whole books.
If I need a 200 pages book quick and Amazon says "about 2 weeks" (because it is a rare English book, for instance), then I just copy it in the library. That's what the machines are there for, and it seems to be legal because it has been like that for years.

Imagine a video-rental would set up some machines with hardware encoders for a quick DVD to SVCD conversion...

[Neo Neko]

Nightweaver I agree with you wholly here.
Originally posted by Nightweaver
I'll summarise my view now, you can agree with it or not.

Piracy is theft. That much is obvious. Someone owns something, and you are taking it against their will for your own personal gain, and that's wrong.

Where I differ is that I fail to see how copying a DVD or anything similar can possibly be called piracy. It's not 'theft of intellectual property' even, because you're not claiming it as your own work ... nobody copies The Matrix, for example, and claims to have filmed it.

Not being stealing doesn't make it inherently right, though. I'm not even gonna try and claim that. Copying doesn't cost them anything - copying music CDs (in the US at least) actually profits them, since the RIAA collects a tax from all blank CDs sold. Loss of potential profit is not a cost, it's just not a profit.

People seem to be making one mistake in refference to these threads alot though. Let me clarrify this. When I speak of piracy I am not talking about backing up "your" DVD for "your" use or anything similar. That is fair use. What I am speaking of is downloading a movie you do not own or encoding a movie for the purposes of sharring it with people who have no rights to it. I don't considder backing up media you own as piracy.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by UGAthecat
basically, I agree that piracy is theft.
I understand that some people see piracy as being Robin Hood to some extent, and others support it for other reasons (like my long-axe rant here - http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28883 ).

I think if you really want to be a Robin Hood to bring down corrupt companies though, you should do it by gathering support in your community to get the govt to provide more fair pricing. Also, with matters like the DMCA, if the majority of the people that express an opinion in a congressman or senator's district/state express their interest in opposition to the proposed law, that representative MUST vote with the people, or they can be kicked out by that majority, and I'm pretty sure their vote can be negated. They are elected to serve OUR interests, not the interests of corporations, all we have to do is get our families and friends to speak up with us and they will support us.

So, if you wanna robin hood against the corruption of the industries, do it by 'robbing' govt representatives away from the 'rich' industries, and give them back to the 'poor' communities.

What you post in this thread is right on. I will not comment here on the link to the other. Piracy is not the answer. Sure the corporations are wrong. But by pirating we drop ourselves to their level. Piracy is not a tool for change and the DMCA is a joke that contradicts established law.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by theReal
I think copying a DVD for my own private use is not really theft, because in my opinion theft somehow involves that I take something from someone and then he doesn't have it anymore. Like when someone steals a CD from a store, the store can't sell this CD anymore and has definitely lost the money. If I only copy the CD, the store still has all of his copies and can sell them. It's also, like someone said before, not stealing intellectual property because everybody who copies audio cd's usually puts the name of the author in every single one of the files.

That definition of theft works but is not conplete. You can steal something from someone and they may never know it happened. They may even use what you have stollen and might never know. Ideas "can" be stolen. Why should there be a double standard for digital media and such. Back up your own DVDs! I encourage that. But don't get things you have no rights to by illegal means.

[MfA]

The only thing the originator can be deprived of when something is copied is potential profit ... there is obviously a difference between this and when something physical is stolen. Thats why its called copyright infringement, and not theft.

There is no double standard, there is just a logical distinction between physical and intellectual property.

Now wether there should be such a thing as intellectual property at all is a different topic ... I would like to say that to be able to effectively enforce copyright law in a digital world you have to outlaw ownership of hardware which can display media completely in private. Personally I dont find copyright important enough to sacrifice my privacy, I dont want a black box in my computer which checks for all my software/video/audio if Im allowed to run it with outside servers (and Ill have to pray that thats all the black box will do).

[ppera2]

Originally posted by theReal
As you mention libraries: at the uni library, there are dozens of high-powered copy machines that are used 12 hours a day for copying parts of books or whole books.
If I need a 200 pages book quick and Amazon says "about 2 weeks" (because it is a rare English book, for instance), then I just copy it in the library. That's what the machines are there for, and it seems to be legal because it has been like that for years.

What a hell... In almost every book stays that "copying... ", you know what....

[UGAthecat]

Originally posted by Neo Neko


I will not comment here on the link to the other. Piracy is not the answer. Sure the corporations are wrong. But by pirating we drop ourselves to their level. Piracy is not a tool for change...

This is basically what I said in the other thread, the long rant is just my personal experience that makes me want to do something other than support the system that is in place. Some people justify piracy from this, I don't, but I understand those that would (not that it would get them out of jail or fines). Piracy isn't the true solution, and the only thing I know of that will help is govt intervention, which will require support of the masses to get.

[Doobie]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
All this piracy does generate false demand though... Prices will not really drop.

Piracy is illegitimate supply that competes against legal suppliers. Piracy creates the same downward price pressure as legal competition does. Indeed, piracy is often a Free Market response to excessive government regulation and current copyright law is no exception.

Doobie. Fanatics can interprit the bible to mean any number of things. That does not mean they are right. The same can be doen with the Koran hence terrorists.

Most conflicting biblical interpretations are either clearly bogus (usually for the sake of Political Correctness or for some cultist to gain personal power) or attempts to stretch vague phrases into concrete expressions (the conflicting interpretations exist because the Bible really doesn't say one way or another). That some people are wrong with the Bible doesn't mean I'm wrong here. BTW, the "terrorists" are right about the Koran and it's their critics who for reasons of Political Correctness accuse the "terrorists" of distorting the Koran.

You are both destructive to the industry. If anything is worth having it is worth paying for and paying it's creator for.

For the umpteenth time, why haven't you paid Bell Labs for the transistors you're using in your computer?

Doobie you want everything for free and couldn't give a shit about any hard work that went into it. I say your boss should treat you the same way. When it comes down to it we the public are an unwiting boss to the media industries.

I'm not the boss of the media industry. They have no contract with me. I have no say in what they choose to do. Rather, they've been very effective in telling me what to do via copyright law.

Their hardwork is none of my business. That doesn't mean I don't care; it just means that it's none of my business, like it's none of my business which side of your bed you sleep on.

And, I don't want everything for free because if everything were free then nothing would be produced thus I couldn't get anything for free. And, this is why copyright law exists.

What is the good in having 500+ movies you will at best mostly watch only once. How about thousands of albums that put you in the same position?

Some people fill hundreds of CDRs per month with pirated content (with 2% of the sales going to the RIAA's interests). It sure is sweet when you're rich enough that you don't have to ask the price, heh. Most of these people will throw away their CDs after a long while, if they don't their children will throw away the CDs when these people die.

I came here to escape your fanaticism Doobie and to get some objective opinion. And so far the consensus is against you.

Most people are either sheep or don't have the time to study every issue, so a mere consensus proves little. So, I'm a fanatic for thinking that "piracy" is copyright infringement but not theft?

I am just searching for the middle ground. So that I may be as close to the truth as possible.

You mean "common ground" not "middle ground." By definition, truth cannot exist in middle ground as it is compromise. Common ground is at least believed to be truth by all parties. We both believe that copyright laws should exist and that artists should be able to make money with their creations. We just differ on the purpose of copyright law.

[Doobie]

Originally posted by avih
compromise is hard for the film industry, since they invest multi million $ on a film, and they intend to get it back by selling dvds and to theaters... but with the music industry, i say let the producers/creators sell their stuff through the net for $2 per album, so they'll get twice than what they get today per sold album, and we'll earn all the resellers and record companies profit which is 95% of what we pay nowdays. easier said than done though..

It's easy for the film industry to make money. Indeed, with computer technology the cost of making movies is dropping through the floor (ditto for making music). And, theaters should never face signficant competition from piracy (quality copies can be kept out of the hands of consumers and few people have home video systems that compare to a theater). DVD sales are just icing on the cake (if the movie industry had their way, there would have been no VHS sales because VCRs would have been illegal).

I agree with you that albums should be $2 on the Internet (or about 5 bucks in the store). To the degree that prices aren't this low reflects that copyright law is too strong and that there's not enough competition (recording companies collude), and that middlemen (recording companies) are sucking up too much money.

[ppera2]

I don't mean to be anti-US here, but truth is that fact that most of popular movies is from IS is also factor which involves piracy, especially in Asian countries where US is not liked much.

Also, when you see how big money earn actors, directors, producers, film houses, you are actually provocated in some way.

There is too much money and people involved, lot of countries. Piracy will not stop. And here is Internet....

[chainsaw135]

Very interesting conversation, my views on this are pretty much main stream i think. I feel if "john" goes out and buys a movie or rents a movie, and backs that movie up its fair use. Some people would not agree with that but i feel you paid for it either way and you have a right to backup something that you've paid to view. Now if john goes and downloads movies or games my view is he payed for the interenet again something that is not free, and he has a right to download and view the items that he can get ahold of since he's paid already for that access. just my 2 cents:)

[Neo Neko]

You have paid for the access. Not the content. They are two distinct items.

[chainsaw135]

normally when i go to "pay sites" i pay for the content on the site and the access. So i hope i'm not throwing people off here but thats just my view. And i pay my monthly high speed access because of the access i get and the content i can download. I feel that the my 2 examples were not to far fetched or my comments in the previous post were wrong because those are two different things. Those two things are a part of this conversation i believe and the last point was moot at best. Others may say you pay for just access. But i see it differently i guess thats what makes this such a great world:) we all have our views and facts that we believe in.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Doobie
Piracy is illegitimate supply that competes against legal suppliers. Piracy creates the same downward price pressure as legal competition does. Indeed, piracy is often a Free Market response to excessive government regulation and current copyright law is no exception.


Doobie you have yet to prove this. Remember your economics fiasco? Among other things I have experience with and have had classes in many business topics. As well as some accounting. And I can tell you honestly that is not the way it works.



Originally posted by Doobie
Most conflicting biblical interpretations are either clearly bogus (usually for the sake of Political Correctness or for some cultist to gain personal power) or attempts to stretch vague phrases into concrete expressions (the conflicting interpretations exist because the Bible really doesn't say one way or another). That some people are wrong with the Bible doesn't mean I'm wrong here. BTW, the "terrorists" are right about the Koran and it's their critics who for reasons of Political Correctness accuse the "terrorists" of distorting the Koran.

Conflicting biblical interpretations are not always clearly bogus. The Roman Catholic Church is full of so called bogus interpretations. But it is one of the most folowed Christian religeons in the world. If not the most folowed religeon in the world. Yet many of their interpretations remain sketchy at best.

Have you read the whole Koran to pass such judgement on the entire muslim community? Even more than that have you actually had much contact with real muslims to say this? Or are you simply continuing to missrepresent things as you have always done? Slandering a religeon and a people that are faceless to you.

Let's drop this whole religeon topic. It will only lead to angst and indignation. I am sorry for bringing it up in the first place. I should have known from all my past experience with you that your heart is to dark to leave well enough alone.



Originally posted by Doobie
For the umpteenth time, why haven't you paid Bell Labs for the transistors you're using in your computer?


I did not pay them because I did not manufature the transistors. The manufacturer can pass the cost on to me but it is not my job to pay them. Pick your battles wisely. But at least make sure they are related.



Originally posted by Doobie
I'm not the boss of the media industry. They have no contract with me. I have no say in what they choose to do. Rather, they've been very effective in telling me what to do via copyright law.


The media industry is the boss of you? They come in your sleep and tell you to buy Britny Spears and Eminem albums? How do they really tell you what to listen to, what to watch? When they say jump, do you say how high? Honestly the media industries can't make you do anything. You don't have to buy or download tons of meaningless drivel. If you do have to you might be just as happy plucking a rubber band sitting in your bathroom. At least there no one is hurt or offended. Mmmmmmmmm twangy!

Originally posted by Doobie
Their hardwork is none of my business. That doesn't mean I don't care; it just means that it's none of my business, like it's none of my business which side of your bed you sleep on.


You have no respect for their work. How could you care?

Originally posted by Doobie
And, I don't want everything for free because if everything were free then nothing would be produced thus I couldn't get anything for free. And, this is why copyright law exists.


Then why break them to the detrement of everyone? Then why have I seen you telling everyone on forums to do just what you say here should not be done?

Originally posted by Doobie
Some people fill hundreds of CDRs per month with pirated content (with 2% of the sales going to the RIAA's interests). It sure is sweet when you're rich enough that you don't have to ask the price, heh. Most of these people will throw away their CDs after a long while, if they don't their children will throw away the CDs when these people die.


Bad purchases and impulse spending are not an excuse for piracy. Is it not better to buy things you really want that to have to put up with the clutter of useless crap you never use. What is the point in having everything in the world? If you have everything in the world things become meaningless. After 3 years of owning a DVD player I have 10 DVD to my name. And in all this time I have only downloaded one DVD rip. An old black and white silent film that is not all that easy to come by. But you know what I am perfectly happy. I don't need to watch the latest crap from hollywood. Nor do I have to listen to the inane drivel of Eminem or Britny Spears. I have what I want and what I like. Why waste time and resources on things that mean nothing to me?



Originally posted by Doobie
Most people are either sheep or don't have the time to study every issue, so a mere consensus proves little. So, I'm a fanatic for thinking that "piracy" is copyright infringement but not theft?


No I may think you might fall under both those categories. But I think you do yourself and everyone here such a disservice reffering to everyone else here in this way. You are not a fanatic for not thinking piracy and theft are the same thing. You are a fanatic for refusing to acknowledge that you have done anything wrong or that piracy is wholly wrong theft ot not.



Originally posted by Doobie
You mean "common ground" not "middle ground." By definition, truth cannot exist in middle ground as it is compromise. Common ground is at least believed to be truth by all parties. We both believe that copyright laws should exist and that artists should be able to make money with their creations. We just differ on the purpose of copyright law.

Is it not so that things in the extreme are less common than the things in the middle? The middle is the common ground for lots of things. Grading curves and more are most dense near the middle. Lets stop debating obvious terms. Truth can come from compromise. As people we often make our own truth. But the truth of the majority outweighs the truth of the individual. Unless you are under a dictator or a monarch it is majority rule.

If you believe that copyright laws should exist for the benefit of creators then why do you break them to their detrement? If you believe that copyright laws should exist for the benefit of creators, why do you also argue that creators by that very same copyright law have no rights to their creation and that you have every right? You have no right to piracy. None of us here does.


Originally posted by Doobie @ Divx.com
If anyone owns content it would be society and it is society (via copyright law based on the Constitution) that chooses to give rights to the content creator. Thus, if copyright infringement is theft, it's not theft against the content creator but against ourselves (society). If I let you borrow my lawnmower (if I give you a right to use my lawnmower), you don't own my lawnmower and if someone steals that lawnmower, he's stealing my lawnmower not yours. And, because it's my lawnmower, it's my right to set the rules for its usage and those rules should be in my interest, which includes letting your borrow it (maybe because this way you'll mow my yard). The only reason a lawnmower is a bad analogy is because it's real property. A better analogy would be if I let you borrow the number 5. What, you say I can't own a number?

As I posted there I will here. A copyright gives you as a member of society no rights to anyones creation. They can get a copyright on their creation and then stick said creation in a hole. A copyright does not give you free license. As you say the copyright laws are for the benefit of the creators. But how then can they only be for the benefit of society? Isn't that a conflict of intrests. Also the whole test drive analogy you use is at best only adheared to by a slim minority of those who pirate. And one who seemes to most vocaly count themselves not among their numbers is you.

Do copyright laws need to be changed? Is their a problem with corporate greed? Yes. But piracy does not improve the situation. It makes you as bad as those you hate. No matter if you define it as theft. Once just once I wish one of those CEOs or corporate execs would get crushed by their golden parachutes I keep hearing about. Ultimatly they like you hurt the ones they employ and the ones they serve. Period.

[Triggerle]

The idea behind the creation of "Copyright" is a compromise to enable artists to profit from their work. This is because the work of Artists was (and is) deemed as beneficial to society.

The Media Industry established itself because people had an idea how to make money with this although being not the actual creators. Their idea was simple. yet intriguing:

1. Get the original creator to allow you distribution
2. Invest in distribution and charge for this distribution
3. Profit

They basically found a way to profit off of the consumers because the distribution media was not easy to create (Think vinyl records)

They were not, however, the ones the "Copyright" was created for, they just found a (legal) way to exploit it.

With the distribution becoming more and more available to the general public (tape recording, VHS, CD-R, divx) the business model of charging for distribution became endagered.

(Note: Here it is, where things start to go wrong)

The now large Media Industry managed to influence politics and the general public to evolve "Copyright" from its initial purpose into a vehicle for them to sustain their profits. This has nothing to do with the original idea of allowing artists to make a living by creating works of art.

Quite the contrary: Artists today generally can not make a living by creating art, but rather only by creating "products" that fit into the Media Industrie's profit strategies. (I know several artists personally, who struggle in this perverse situation.)

The original reasoning behind the creation of a "Copyright", namely the benefit of society, is actually negated with Media Industry, transformed into the "Intellectual Property Industry", now actually damaging this benefit.

Conclusions:

1. The Media Industry today has used its influence into politics and the general public to sustain a profit off of society that they are no longer entitled to, since the added value that their initial business model was based upon (distribution) is no longer present. "Intellectual Property" is the Media Industrie's invention to sustain this profit. It is not based in a public interest, but only in the interest of the few, who are profiting.

2. Copying is legally forbidden. I don't find it morally wrong, though, since its prohibition is not based on public interest any more.

[resonator]

Originally posted by Triggerle
The idea behind the creation of "Copyright" is a compromise to enable artists to profit from their work. This is because the work of Artists was (and is) deemed as beneficial to society.

The Media Industry established itself because people had an idea how to make money with this although being not the actual creators. Their idea was simple. yet intriguing:

1. Get the original creator to allow you distribution
2. Invest in distribution and charge for this distribution
3. Profit

You missed one point: They finance the creation and it's production onto a media. They pay for that.

And I know a lot of artists who like the comfort of being able to rely on the infra-structure that an established company can provide.

They basically found a way to profit off of the consumers because the distribution media was not easy to create (Think vinyl records)

Sure, every industry does. That's what's called capitalism man.

They were not, however, the ones the "Copyright" was created for, they just found a (legal) way to exploit it.

You're mixing two concepts:
- copyright over an idea (artist, author, writer...)
- copyright over an explicit reproduction (f.e. the recording of an song, filming a script, ...) of an idea (company)

You know, this "media industry" pays for the creation of the content, why should they not be allowed to make a profit of it, why should they not have exclusive rights to the distribution of the content they financed?

Quite the contrary: Artists today generally can not make a living by creating art, but rather only by creating "products" that fit into the Media Industrie's profit strategies. (I know several artists personally, who struggle in this perverse situation.)

I agree on this one, but that's what Mainstream has always been. Hell, even Mozart had to do compositions that way. Don't tell me anything else, I used to live in Salzburg. ;)


2. Copying is legally forbidden. I don't find it morally wrong, though, since its prohibition is not based on public interest any more.

It's prohibition is based on the fact that if you take away a company's right to prohibt copies of the content it paid for there wouldn't be any media industry at all, so there wouldn't be anything for you to copy.

[Triggerle]

You missed one point: They finance the creation and it's production onto a media. They pay for that.
Tell that to a book author, who has to finance his work entirely on his own and then try to get someone to publish it.

With music your point is somewhat valid, although those receiving funding ahead of creation are usually not those creating art, but those creating what I call "products for the music industry's strategic market development".
It's prohibition is based on the fact that if you take away a company's right to prohibt copies of the content it paid for there wouldn't be any media industry at all, so there wouldn't be anything for you to copy.
Wrong. The artists would still be there and they would still publish their works. I strongly believe that there would be more original art, once the Media Industry has vanished.

[Triggerle]

and one more thing (pushed submit to early):

With regards to your capitalism argument; In my post I tried to illustrate that Copyright is actually an exemption to capitalistic principles as it is basically a government granted right to fend off competitors based on an artificially created legal construction as opposed to free supply/demand. This exemption has its roots in the "art=benefit for the society" situation I detailed, which I believe is not the case anymore.

[RadicalEd]

damn, you miss the most interesting things when you're grounded for a week (yep, the truth comes out, I'm a minor >.> <.< how minor? thats for me to know and you to forget :P). So my $2 in the piracy deal, well it ties into the above. I don't have tons of money because, well, I don't have a job. Being able to download things like horribly overpriced video editing programs *cough* premiere *cough* is really the only option and its a godsend. As for movies, I just think its cool to be able to copy the DVDs that I buy onto a far lesser known format that I can play in most any DVD player. Yah, I'm not gonna lie, I've rented anime from blockbuster, copied, and given to some friends. One even gave me 10 bux for the effort. So crucify me, its the fault of my anime addiction. It makes me do bad things. Anyway at the same time its given me an opportunity to learn all kinds of things and perhaps because of it I'll go into a field related to video editing. Is piracy bad? Are the companies evil? Are the pirates evil? nah, the companies are out to rip customers off and we're out to rip them off.
Because of piracy I was able to get a program that allows me to make say a music video that will make a few hundred people laugh. Is that necessarily a bad thing? hmm. But hey, what does my opinion matter, after all I'm just a kid ;)

[Doobie]

Originally posted by resonator

You missed one point: They finance the creation and it's production onto a media. They pay for that.

That's wrong simply because it's not really that expensive to produce music. You can rent an independent recording studio for a few bucks and then go home and burn CDs all day long, for nickles per CD. We're getting to the point where you can turn your basement into an acoustically accurate recording studio for the price of a PC and the software.

The real problem is the collusion between the recording studios. They're a bunch of thugs who are better compared to the mafia than to legitimate business. They've been ripping off the public, ripping off artists, and polluting our culture for years and now the middleman role they serve is nearing obsolescence and they're going to use their influence with congress and their general bullying tactics to keep themselves in business.

You know, this "media industry" pays for the creation of the content, why should they not be allowed to make a profit of it, why should they not have exclusive rights to the distribution of the content they financed?

So, you agree with the 15% off the top recording companies charge for breakage even those CDs don't break (a practice leftover from the phonograph days)? Is that what you're calling capitalism? I call it theft. And, speaking of those exclusive rights (to everything), I consider that to be anti-competative behavior. There's no consideration for the artist when he's forced into giving up exclusive rights. That's more theft. Such examples are pervasive in the recording industry.

It sure is ironic that people copying songs are accused of being thieves while Ali Baba has the lawmakers in his back pocket.

[Neo Neko]

You are still no better than them Doobie. Piracy has ne benneficial effects period. They will still charge just as much or more even as you continue to pirate. And it is honest people like myself who will truly suffer.

[Doom9]

neo: I think you're making your life a bit too easy, too. It's not since Napster that the content industry has been trying to outlaw fair use.. that has been going on forever and will go on forever (assuming that some lawmakers are smart enough to see thru the MPAA/RIAA rhetorics). There are after all studies that tell the exact opposite of these two organizations and I think the truth will be somewhere in between.
true, pirating doesn't do you any service when it comes to creating new big brother laws.. but if you refrain from doing it and think that these laws will not come thanks to your actions you're being incredibly naive.
there will always be a race between pirates and the content providers. Since the content industry's current strategy (screw the consumer with copy protection mechanisms) is not playing out well they try the legal way now. Now let's take the DMCA as an example to illustrate that it doesn't have to be widespread piracy for the content industry to try and screw you over. Dunno about the US but around here I think it's safe to say that it takes about 2 years for a normal law from creation to being passed in parliament.. the DMCA was enacted in 98.. so say creation started in 96. Did we even have DVDs in 96? We did not.. I got my first DVD player in late 98 when the format was officially introduced in Europe, and I think the US launch was 1 year or less before that. And at that time virtually nobody had the possibility to transfer that data that makes out a DVD rip these days.. and the whole ripping technology did not exist either. So.. online movie piracy definitely was not the reason the DMCA was created, but I'm sure you would agree that the DMCA is essentially bad for us users and good for the content industry.

Imho the content industry should read "the art of war"... know your enemy should be a keyword. Try and find out why people copy in the first place.. and take that reason away from them. Laws, copy protection mechanisms ase they are being done now are a defensive mechanism, trying to take away the reasons why people copy in the first place would be an offensive measure that is much more likely to succeed. For instance take music downloads... with mp3s becoming ever more popular and portable mp3 players selling like hotcakes it would be a natural measure for studios to offer them for download, too. Since you can save a lot of distribution, storage and intermediate retailer costs the price could probably be below 10$ and studios would still make the same amount of money. Invest heavily into watermarking so that you can backtrace an mp3 to the guy who bought it in order to send him a C&D letter if he shares his legally acquired copy on p2p tools. Every p2p user knows how hard it is to get a good copy of a full album.. if you can get that in the same format, but properly done, and for a reasonable price I'm sure many would be willing to go the easy way and pay something rather than bother with p2p. Of course this is a rather simplistic example.

But just to go on with that line of thought for a sec.. a friend of mine went to Malaysia for a year a while back. Over there everybody has a VCD player and many had a large movie collection as movies are so cheap over there. Of course.. we're talking bootleg copies but you cannot expect people to pay $20-30 for a single movie if they don't earn a lot more.. these people simply can't pay the price hollywood is asking for movies. And no law is going to change the simple fact that you have to eat..

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Doom9
neo: I think you're making your life a bit too easy, too. It's not since Napster that the content industry has been trying to outlaw fair use.. that has been going on forever and will go on forever (assuming that some lawmakers are smart enough to see thru the MPAA/RIAA rhetorics). There are after all studies that tell the exact opposite of these two organizations and I think the truth will be somewhere in between.

No no not at all. I understand that all to well. But Doobie argues that piracy is a good method for the consumer to bring about benneficial change in the media industries. It is my point that he could not be further from the truth. Yes they have been wanting to do it for forever. But people who pirate, especially those with his attitude are being used as a tool to pass more legislation here that will only trample the rights of the innocent and not stop the true offenders. If we all were just backing up the media we own the media companies would not have a legal leg to stand on. But people like Doobie are a rallying point for them to focus against.


Originally posted by Doom9
true, pirating doesn't do you any service when it comes to creating new big brother laws.. but if you refrain from doing it and think that these laws will not come thanks to your actions you're being incredibly naive.

I know that me simply not pirating is not going to change much. But me pirating will only change things for the worst. I was supprised to first find out how many people paid creedence to what I say. Even if I only help one person realize it could be worth it. Then they could go on to tell others. The odds being against you is not a reason to give up.

Originally posted by Doom9
there will always be a race between pirates and the content providers. Since the content industry's current strategy (screw the consumer with copy protection mechanisms) is not playing out well they try the legal way now. Now let's take the DMCA as an example to illustrate that it doesn't have to be widespread piracy for the content industry to try and screw you over. Dunno about the US but around here I think it's safe to say that it takes about 2 years for a normal law from creation to being passed in parliament.. the DMCA was enacted in 98.. so say creation started in 96. Did we even have DVDs in 96? We did not.. I got my first DVD player in late 98 when the format was officially introduced in Europe, and I think the US launch was 1 year or less before that. And at that time virtually nobody had the possibility to transfer that data that makes out a DVD rip these days.. and the whole ripping technology did not exist either. So.. online movie piracy definitely was not the reason the DMCA was created, but I'm sure you would agree that the DMCA is essentially bad for us users and good for the content industry.


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.

Originally posted by Doom9
Imho the content industry should read "the art of war"... know your enemy should be a keyword. Try and find out why people copy in the first place.. and take that reason away from them. Laws, copy protection mechanisms ase they are being done now are a defensive mechanism, trying to take away the reasons why people copy in the first place would be an offensive measure that is much more likely to succeed. For instance take music downloads... with mp3s becoming ever more popular and portable mp3 players selling like hotcakes it would be a natural measure for studios to offer them for download, too. Since you can save a lot of distribution, storage and intermediate retailer costs the price could probably be below 10$ and studios would still make the same amount of money. Invest heavily into watermarking so that you can backtrace an mp3 to the guy who bought it in order to send him a C&D letter if he shares his legally acquired copy on p2p tools. Every p2p user knows how hard it is to get a good copy of a full album.. if you can get that in the same format, but properly done, and for a reasonable price I'm sure many would be willing to go the easy way and pay something rather than bother with p2p. Of course this is a rather simplistic example.

I agree that they should know their enemy. Because if they did they would realize that their efforts thus far and planned ones for the future have little or no effect on their enemy and only alienate their friends.

As for finding full albums in good quality in a homogenius format it is rather easily done. With or without them it does not matter. I agree they ignore that avenue and focus to much on using technology against those who pirate. But I can understand them to a point and do not wholly blame them. They like Doobie have a singular myopic view of the situation and are lacking in good strategic intel.

Originally posted by Doom9
But just to go on with that line of thought for a sec.. a friend of mine went to Malaysia for a year a while back. Over there everybody has a VCD player and many had a large movie collection as movies are so cheap over there. Of course.. we're talking bootleg copies but you cannot expect people to pay $20-30 for a single movie if they don't earn a lot more.. these people simply can't pay the price hollywood is asking for movies. And no law is going to change the simple fact that you have to eat..

I never argue the fact that hollywood and friends are charging to much. What I argue is the fact that piracy will change anything in positive ways.

One thing I take to heart on the effects of piracy are the prices of CDs. Apart from there not being much good out any more, the average price of CDs went from 12.99/13.99 in 1998/99 to 14.99/22.99 since the advent of things like napster. And I have to give alot of credit to things like napster here. The cost of music and CD production has not gone up. And neither has most artist pay. Employment has gone down here and the pay for the average worker has not increased. How can we account for the increased ammount we are now paying? Unless I have missed something which I would like to know napster has played a starring role along with many other supporting cast.