AP Looks at Piracy, Misses the Point 406
TechDirt is reporting that the Associated Press has covered several stories recently about what a "huge threat" piracy is in other countries. This article, however, argues that they have perhaps missed out on the whole story by ignoring the other side of the coin. From the article: "the AP doesn't bother to mention how all that piracy helped created new and different business models for musicians in China that let them thrive despite the piracy (actually, in some cases, because of it). Nor does the AP bother to mention how software piracy helped boost certain aspects of the industry in China by decreasing the cost of inputs."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is this a surprise? (Score:4, Insightful)
Assuming you mean unathorised copying of copyrighted works then no, it's not theft. It is, however, illegal in most jurisdictions relevant to anyone here.
For Christ's sake. Anybody can do better than that at elementary logic. EVEN if we were to concede that copyright infringement is theft and EVEN if the previous poster had said "copyright infringement is good" that would at most lead to the conclusion that the previous poster believes that SOME theft is good. Which, of course, any reasoning person believes in any event.
If the subject under discussion was the morality of theft then the interesting question is more along the lines of "when is theft justified", not whether it ever can be.
Re:Yes, you idiot, it's defined in US Code as "the (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WANTED: Surrogate Corporate Parents (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is this a surprise? (Score:5, Informative)
They clearly distinguished between copyright infringement and theft in a 1985 case, where they said, "(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use."
Re:Is this a surprise? (Score:2)
Re:Is this a surprise? (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA wants people to think that copyright infringment is the same as theft, and previosly the word "piracy" has been coined to go with creative matirial to mean copyright infrngment. This allow
Re:Is this a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Adverts are allowed to be 'economical' with the truth, but they're not allowed to outright lie. Otherwise, it comes under 'false advertising', and the involved companies can get spanked quite hard.
The whole 'Piracy is theft' slogan, put large on the screen is a bare faced lie.
At the moment, I'd hazard a guess that not a lot of people complain about this, but, given a wider base of complainers, perhaps the ASA will wake up and tell the entertainment industry that it's a bad thing to put on the screens.
Incidentally, there's another ad going round in the cinemas here, about not getting 'pre release' pirate movies..
I could disagree with them on the quality issue, but they keep stating the rest of it is all about the experience of going to the show on the big screen, and I'm 100% behind them on that. I wish, if they had to do the whole brainwashing/indoctrination thing, that they'd actually pick a rational reason, not the knee jerk "Black is white because we say so. Disbelieve us and we'll beat you with a stick." approach.
Re:Is this a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. In fact it's worse than that. Piracy is armed robbery with violence. On the high seas, to boot.
However, copyright violation (which is what we seem to be discussing here) remains copyright violation. And that's also "whether you agree with it or not"
So, according to the OP, theft is good.
Well, if it turns out that TFA really is discussing the violent seizure of goods at sea, then I'd have to conceed you were right. Otherwise, the main point I took was that there remains considerable room for debate as to the actual vs perceived benefits of current copyright legislation.
That's certainly a new one for me.
Splendid! There's nothing like exposure to new ideas to widen ones horizons. Don't you think?
Re:Is this a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is this a surprise? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, they have lots of money, and lots of influence, so we have to be careful.
What's wrong with using a little humour to illustrate his point?
Re:When is piracy not piracy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:When is piracy not piracy? (Score:2)
that's funny... My daughter lost the registration code for that same crappy game, and EA was very supportive, considering the reg code is likely to be considered more senstive than the actual media... Ten bucks and a three day wait (for the letter to arrive) and she was back in business. I c
Piracy verses Theft (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not just talking technically here, but as I can't be bothered to rehash the arguments right now, I'll link to to a post of mine [slashdot.org] in an old JE.
Please also note that I'm not saying that breach of trust is a good thing: society is built on trust. I am only saying that piracy and theft are not the same thing,
Re:Is this a surprise? (Score:3, Interesting)
It is noteworthy that someone who sneaks into a movie or concert without paying is charged with tresspassing, not theft.
Re:Is this a surprise? (Score:2)
There's another big difference, too. If your purpose is a critique of the entire article, and not just sharing the news, then it's covered by fair use.
Oh and by the way, copyright infringement is not theft no matter how you look at it. Thank you.
Re:Is this a surprise? (Score:3, Insightful)
If we're talking about copyright infringement, use of marijuana, or a host of other crimes, then simply having such huge numbers known to be involved puts the issue in the public eye. Being public about it isn't a necessary component to accomplish this goal.
It's often defined in different ways, and if you ask google to define it (for example) the top two definitions differ widely, mostly in that one of
Re:Is this a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Too many sources have too much of a one-faced approach to the story
No, the problem is that they have the same one faced approach.
Did AP also miss.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Did AP also miss.... (Score:2)
One thing both AP and the poster missed... (Score:2)
Re:One thing both AP and the poster missed... (Score:2)
"Is that the word "piracy" is loaded, and that by using it, any writer immediately not only shows bias or misunderstanding of the issues, but also becomes a puppet in big corporations' propaganda show. It's much like the use of the word "war" in reference to the illegal invasion of iraq."
Ah yes, the "the term 'piracy' was invented by the big corporations" meme.
Back when I was a kid and we pirated software for the Apple II, nobody had a problem with the word. We pirated games, we played them, and ever
Re:One thing both AP and the poster missed... (Score:2, Informative)
Is identity theft not theft? Theft of services?
Re:Did AP also miss.... (Score:2)
--Rob
Wiki reference: +1 informative! w00t! :)
Re:Did AP also miss.... (Score:2)
So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Interesting)
Brilliant!
Here's the problem: the new "business model" they talk about is that free music sometimes promotes something else (concerts, merchandise, or something new entirely). Ok, great. What if it's my music, and I don't want you to have it for free, regardless of how else it might "help" me? What if I've voluntarily signed on with a record label because I think that it's in my best interests (and no, I haven't been "brainwashed"), and that record label has a trade group that represents it, and what if the laws of my country support the protections of my creations?
I love how in the AllOfMP3.com story here recently, people talked about it as a new "business model" that the record labels and trade groups just hated. Um, huh? The Russian mob taking things that don't belong to them under the guise of a very weak argument that they can do it under radio license rules (which are designed, ironically, to get people to BUY the content, not as the mechanism for people to permanently obtain pristine digital copies) and selling them for 1/10 or 1/20 of what they sell for via legitimate channels is a "business model"? I guess if you don't believe that anyone should be able to "own" content like that, ever, and that the "legitimate" distribution channels are nothing more than a state-sponsored and -backed mob, ok.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that the the content owners might need to sell the content for 2 or 5 or 10 times more than AllOfMP3.com does to actually support the industry? If your answer is "no, they don't need all these ungodly rich Britney Spears types" etc., and should be able to sell it for just the costs of bandwidth, who the hell are YOU to decide that? Chances are, some of their promotion, advertising, distribution, marketing, and production is what made a particular artist - the popular ones people often pirate - desirable in the first place. And how is it even an argument that, essentially, you can "steal"/copy something on your own and get it for cheaper, and if it's more expensive than some arbitrary value you've set in your head, it's okay to just take?
But why is the anti-copyright argument always the one touted here?
And for those in the "copyright is bad on works that can be effortlessly copied in the digital realm", consider that "art for art's sake" isn't the end-all be-all argument, either. Have you ever considered that since economics isn't a zero-sum game, that there are millions of people who have indirectly benefited economically from the industries that have sprung up around, support, and are supported by, music, television, books, and movies?
I'm not saying the trade groups aren't out for control, and maybe even aren't greedy baby-eating bastards. But this isn't binary opposition: it's not RIAA-like "thuggery", or no ownership rights at all. Where's the middle ground? And no, I'm not saying copyright should be perpetual and infinite, either. But can we ignore A.A. Milne's shit that's 75 years old for a minute as an arguing point, and talk about what's really at issue, which is brand new, current, and popular music and movies?
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
I love how there's always someone who will bring useless arguments like, "it's against the law", into a discussion about what the law should be.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
I love how supposedly-intelligent people can't realize that at some level, at some point in time, members of a civilized society must have some acceptance of a system of laws and order, instead of just arbitrarily and indiscriminately breaking ones they personally disagree with, if there is to be any value to a legal system at all.
So, since all you could do was pick
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
My solution would be to restore the balance..
Copyright holders should only have the distribution rights to their own work, not the work of electronic and software engineers just because their devices can be used for "circumvention" of locks designed to remove publically demanded flexibility such as skipping manatory commercials and fair use format shifting.
what solution do you suggest? continue expanding thei
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
But what about people who use those, or any other, tools en masse to distribute something to which they don't have rights? This isn't about BitTorrent being made illegal or The Pirate Bay being shut down.
How should copyright owners be able to assert that right of distribution, as you note they should have? What if they (perhaps "they" here is a complicated netw
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
first off allow me to point out that bit for bit copies of DRM'ed media "en masse" do not require circumvention at all, and still work on all official players. Second I would like to point out that unlike casual users, large commercial pirate syndicates can hire engineers to crack it, that is.. if it doesnt get cracked by hacker camps who have succeeded in cracking everything
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok so if there is a law I disagree with I should encourage its change but not break it until its been changed. Hate to break it to you but thats just what me and many others are doing, I havn't illigally copied a piece of music sence the original napster (at that time the legality was undecided, and parts of it are still now). But you seem to think that if I simply post on a message board the positive effects on free copying (and your right, piracy is probably wrong to advocate, as it advocates breaking the law) that I'm some type of low life that has no respect for property and can not make a rational argument.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2, Interesting)
Hmmm...like a certain powerful leader chooses to do on the slightest whim. The "thieves" you disparage are just following the example set by their "superiors". Many of us don't believe in the "Do as I say, not as I do." thing anymore. If you won't apply the law to everybody...equally, don't try to apply it to me. "Si tu fumas, yo puedo fumar tanbien."
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
The only value of a legal system is when it preserves and protects the freedoms and the interests of The People. The law does not exist for its own sake.
"Law and Order" for its own sake is not a virtue. It's tyranny.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:4, Interesting)
You talking about Slashdot? (Score:2)
Huh? Are you reading a different Slashdot to me? Every time I mention that I might consider download Futurama episodes people get mad at me!
You must be thinking of Digg.
By the way most of the statements you made are false but I won't bother to explain why because it has been done many times before. Read the archives.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
considering the stance you take on your post.. I believe you have the answer already.
You seem to believe that these people should be allowed to control and regulate every other sector of the economy.. that they are some superclass of nobles who have a "right" to revenue. The question should not be weather the 99.999999% of the human population on this planet are not being prosecuted for piracy, it should be why 0.000001% of the population ar
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
and exactly what part of that freedom to distribute their work is covered by the DMCA, which distrupts the right of electrical engineers, software developers, inventors, and potential competitors and innovators in the tech sector from distributing their works as they see fit...
they should have a right to independently engineer their own way to in
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:3, Interesting)
The way things have worked for the 80 years preceeding the DMCA was thus:
first,the recording industries and the elecronics industries get together to create standards. The specs for these standards are documented, and an "official" implementation is provided for you for a nominal license fee, so long as you met the conditions of the license.
It was not necessary though to get the official license. You see.. these standar
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Have you downloaded music from the net? Pristine is not what you get; it is what the record labels use as an excuse to not allow it. Half the time I get good, or ok copies until I buy the CD. Then I get pristine!
Music that is cut off at the end, has 30 sec of music followed by static, plays half way through then stops due to a bad bit rate change, etc. Sure you can d
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
That's the "business model" people think is so great, to which I was mockingly referring. It's not a "business model"; it's a bunch of people with no costs taking things that aren't theirs, and "selling" them. Yeah, great "business model".
Lossless is an option (Score:2)
You can choose the file format and bit rate when you purchase.
FLAC (a lossless format) is one of the options.
However unlike most stores, you pay per megabyte so you have to consider if having lossless is really worth paying many times the price for a relatively small increase in quality over some of the other formats available such as ogg.
Re:Questions about AllofMP3? (Score:2)
2) Um, yes, I have "evidence" of this. They don't own that content, period. And please, please, please, for the love of God, stop using the tiresome deprivation and "not really theft/taking/stealing" arguments. Whatever euphemism you want to use to justify it, they're still something-ing (where "something" is whatever variant of "taking", "copying", or whatever, that you wish to use) content that doesn't belong to them, and selling it. If you think tha
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing that I think makes this such a difficult problem is that, it would seem, the music/movie/entertainment industry as it is and has been since the middle of last century (ie, since the advent of practical mechanical/electronic publication of music/movies/etc) is built on a model that fundamentally requires that high-quality duplication be expensive. That is no longer true. As a result, one of two things will happen. Either the system will be changed so that it IS once again expensive to duplicate these products, or the production system will change to be compatible with free or near-free copying.
The legal wrangling that's been going on is all essentially trying to make duplication expensive. It's not technically expensive any more, so the powers that be are adding legal and social costs (through laws or public villification of offenders). They're also trying to make it technically expensive through artificial means (copy protecting hardware, e.g.).
In my opinion, this is destined to fail. I don't believe you can achieve the level of enforcement necessary to rub out piracy (arrrrr) or the technical sophistication to outwit all the world's engineers who want to make a high-quality copy of a file they possess. The cat is out of the bag, technologically, and it ain't going back in.
It's a scary prospect, both for the entertainment producers and for the end users. No one knows what a market compatible with near-free duplication costs will support. It's never been done before. The producers stand to lose a lot, since they can't predict where to go to protect their interests in this unknown environment. The end users also stand to lose since it is quite possible that the number of artists who can be supported will fall drastically. Of course, it could end up being better for everyone in the long run. But it's really pretty close to impossible to predict.
Anyway, just some thoughts. I don't have any prescriptive answers for how to deal with this phase change. The best I can do is urge copyright reform to help society face up to the fact that free and easy copying is going to be the way of the future and hope that we can responsibly manage the transition.
Oh, and screw the **AA.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
We no longer need copyright to encourage people to create new music. There are almost ZERO barriers to entry when it comes to making a musical recording. 50 years ago, you needed an expensive studio, you had to pay people to work the equipment, etc. Now you just need an el cheapo computer and a cheap microphone from Radio Shack. Want some proof? How about the 2 million+ bands on myspace? Or how about searchin
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Copyleft.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Yes, I do find it odd, as I would wager that a very large number of
I think the problem is that copyright gets in the way of what we want to do with technology, therefore it must die. I will not be told what to do with my computer by law, and god forbid me if someone tried to impose a technological restriction on me. I thi
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
We are the market. It's called capitalism.
Some artists have mass market appeal and become rich regardless of piracy.
Some can't even give their songs away. It's all market demand.
And in other countries not under the stranglehold of the US copyright system, where we cannot get our act together and supply what consum
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Then don't play it, or allow it to be played in places where people might hear it. Nobody is making you share it.
The issue is that once you've made it available, it is utterly absurd that people should pay an "industry" to issue a "sanctioned copy" when they can do it themselves for nothing.
Enacting laws to force people to do it that way just annoys them and turns them into criminals, because the laws
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:4, Interesting)
Copy right originated as the RIGHT TO COPY protecting printing presses from trying to put a stranglehold on production and allowing education to not be impeded by finance. It was the right for the people who purchased something to copy it for their own use.
Extrapolate this now to modern era with media such as music and movies. It follows that I should have the RIGHT to copy anything I lawfully purchase. Any form of DRM impedes MY RIGHTS as outlined in the intent of this law. It is that I disagree with, and thus any laws that support it.
As for allofmp3.com maybe the **AA should take a clue from the success of this site and of iTunes and see that people ARE willing and able to pay, and they are telling the *AA what they are willing to pay. A smart organization would listen and adapt. They would say "Wow, people are willing to pay X amount for this in droves... how can we work that as to capitalize on all these sales" and "we can sell 100k copies at $20 or 500K copies at $10... how do we work a greater profit margin out of the $10 sale then?"
That is what people refer to as the "Business model," not piracy as a business model (although many companies *cough* microsoft *cough* have made it one and cornered a market via piracy. But looking at what people are showing themselves to be willing to do and adapting to that rather than trying to force what the **AA as an organization feels people should be willing to do.
I will admit to my own bout of piracy but have since realized it was not productive. Now I seek out means of legitimately acquiring the things I need at a price I am willing to pay. Wow... free market... what a concept. If it is legal for me to pay $2 to a company in Russia for an album in mp3 format I will do so. Russian law requires the artist receive a portion of this which I support. I see no need to pay the **AA to do ANYTHING. Now if someone proves the artist is not receiving their portion of the money then I will also support any legal action taken against the people who broke the law. Any artist who's music I have purchased is more than free to contact me asking for my assistance in this... or to make that argument publicly.
Someone found a business model which as far as I know is legal, to sell me something I want for a price I am willing to pay. If iTunes offered the same price I would still buy from allofmp3 because it lacks DRM and I can do what I want with what I purchased, as I have a RIGHT to do. If iTunes offered the same thing for the same price I would buy from them as their interface is better and I have a slight preference to supporting US companies. See the pattern? Sounds like free market to me.
Under no circumstances will I give these files to anyone else, as that is illegal and unethical unless I then delete them. As I feel I was charged a reasonable price I should direct others to buy it at the same place. It is equally unethical in my mind to prevent me from doing so. If I want to give a book to my friend for them to read I can do so. No one would dispute this, even the **AA, although they would like to. Why should a CD or mp3 be different? So long as I do not have a duplicate of the item when I give it, that should be a legally protected transaction.
The difference between me and most is I feel an obligation to "fight the system" I disagree with but by simply not giving my money to those I disagree with. If you want to sign on as an artist with an RIAA label that is your right... just don't expect my money or for me to support you when ask me to vote for laws that impede my rights. Now if you want to sell me your album direct for $2-5 and pocket everything but the bandwidth costs be my guest, you will probably get my money. If your any good you will probably get my money more than once because I did not back up your mp3 before a HD crash or some such.
Asking who benefits turns up interesting answers. (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, some of the distortion in the argument proposed by the MPA, RIAA, and big book publishers focuses on the plight of the artist when it is actually these organizations that have no problem screwing these same artists in situations where illicit copying and distribution haven't entered the picture.
Some forms of media we cherish were initally percieved as wrong: Radio, which you mention, was initially dismissed as "piracy". So too was cable TV, recorded performances of various kinds (analog video tape, analog audio tape, digital audio tape, digital video recorders), and sheet music.
One thing seems clear to me through the years: the organized businesses apparently don't know their business well enough to be taken seriously when they claim the sky is falling on their business model, and it's not clear to me that the businesses are properly interpreting the intent of copyright.
Remember Prohibition.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that regular people in the US can justify some form of copyright infringement means that the system is broken. The classic example is prohibition. Prohibition was created to get the country on the "right track" my "well meaning people", but all it really did was make criminals out of r
Re:Fuck off (Score:2)
If you buy into the argument that private ownership of the means of production aka capitalism should be, and indeed, MUST be, the best way to run an economy of rivalrous goods then it only stands to reason that an economy of non-rivalrous goods should be and indeed, must be, based on free and unimpeded sharing.
I put "stealing" in quotes in my post for a reason. Christ, the
Re:F*** off (Score:4, Insightful)
Fansubs - beneficial piracy (Score:5, Interesting)
However, it proves beneficial. Take for instance, Funimation. At conventions, the Funimation booth runs contests, and on the entry form you may list anime that you would like Funimation to consider licensing. They know these shows are being downloaded, and instead of condeming the person downloading like some other organizations, they ask if they should bring it stateside so that it may be introduced to a wider audience through American television.
I would prefer to see many organizations take this approach. I would love for record labels to ask "what unsigned artists are you listening to that you think we should consider signing".
Piracy can actually be used to a company's advantage at times, and too many seem pre-occupied with the short term loss of a $20 Ashlee Simpson CD to notice.
Re:Fansubs - beneficial piracy (Score:2)
many people download them and share them
And i am glad to see (from what i have seen) that most anime producers realize this and don't go after fansub shar
Re:Fansubs - beneficial piracy (Score:2)
fansubs vs bootlegs (Score:2)
Re:Fansubs - beneficial piracy (Score:2)
Re:Fansubs - beneficial piracy (Score:3, Informative)
While I cannot even begin to predict what might happen if the music/movie industry treated their customers with the same respect as anime companies, I can say that at this point it honestly couldn't hurt them to try. What's the worst that could happen, customers don't ha
Re:Fansubs - beneficial piracy (Score:2)
Re:Is anyone losing money in this? (Score:2)
The companies make their money when a pirated anime (such as Naruto) gets licensed and not only shows up on Cartoon Network, but at
American example (Score:5, Interesting)
And nor does AP bother to state that the US itself explicitly encouraged the pirating of foreign works in its 1790 Copyright Act:
Only in 1891 the US started protecting foreign works under the Chase Act. It serves to remember that the US justified pirating foreign works as being economically beneficial for the country. Even the Chase Act wasn't too friendly to foreign authors: it did protect their rights, but the Manufacturing Clause prevented their publishers from publishing their works in the US. This clause was removed only in 1986. It took the US 101 years to join the Berne Convention [wikipedia.org].
kinda obvious (Score:2, Insightful)
This article is a bit vauge. (Score:4, Interesting)
Can anyone supply some more information?
It's easy to invoke the old arguments about a colapsing business model and the failure of big companies to react to the market etc. etc. but how and why are chinese artists better without a working copyright system?
This isn't a rhetorical question, I'd like to know.
inputs of production (Score:4, Insightful)
Now in the case of a developing nation, such as China, labor is relatively inexpensive and capital is relatively expensive. Numerous microeconomic models have different ways of combining capital and labor which yields output. The important thing here is that "cost" of captial goods are often the limiting factor for a developing nation. Piracy does lower this cost allowing developing nations to deliver capital intense (techy) goods at a lower per-unit cost. So one could make the arguement that by people in developed countries (such as the US) they are in effect allowing developing nations to produce good at an artifically lower price. However I don't see how lowering the price of music/videos much effect on a developed nation
Piracy Undermines Culture (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the interesting points: China has to orient (no pun intended) their films to an American audience because rampant piracy in China means that there isn't enough of a local market to support Chinese films.
I've heard the same thing from Chinese video game makers, they have to make games that will sell in places where copyright is to some degree respected because they would starve trying to live off the money they can make in their home market.
If everyone pirated everything we would have no Lord of the Rings movies, no video games like Halo or Grand Theft Auto -- we'd still have small indy films and subscription games like WoW, but piracy only works now because it's a group of parasites feeding off media that the rest of us pay for.
Re:Piracy Undermines Culture (Score:2, Interesting)
Just one example of many. It astonishes me how many people here on Slashdot can't tell truth from fantasy even when truth looks them in the eye.
"Undermine" culture? (Score:2)
Re:Piracy Undermines Culture (Score:2)
So all we get is Halo sequels then? Remember, people have tried to raise funds for additional episodes of shows like Star Trek and Firefly, and failed.
If we can't use the street performer method to raise money to pay for popular TV shows how do you expect to fund projects by unknowns?
More to the point, why are these new business models the only business models that are allowed? Because people will just take
You've got to be kidding, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do the math: AP provides stories to publishers. Publishers are owned by large companies who publish stuff--like books, music, movies.
Did you REALLY expect them to bite the hand that feeds them?
Why would they publish a story that favors piracy helping people when they could push the agenda their way to protect the interests of the corporations pirates are hurting?
Look--piracy is stealing no matter what kind of spit shine you put on it. Are the BSA, MPAA, and RIAA going a bit over the top about it? Yes. Does that somehow make piracy right? No. It's still stealing. Just because the AP isn't picking up on what some techblog mentioned on slashdot doesn't make them morons. I think we glorify our own technical punditry beyond the tempest in the teapot that it really is.
It's never about what is the "best"--it's always about what's more popular. That's where the money is. Windows and VHS are testments to that. It's all about margins and paying off the share holders.
The REAL story is going to be which of the publishers (movie studios and record labels included) survive the learning curve of the new business model--the computer as an entertainment hub. The whole MP3 thing blew up not because of piracy but because it was EASY and CHEAP. That's what consumers want--easy and a fair price. The content providers are catching on--hence all the TV-a-la-carte on the iTMS.
Is it the best? Probably not. But is it lucrative? Hell, yeah. You don't have to be Warren Buffet to figure that out.
It's all about the Benjamins, baby.
The thread poster has a wierd sense of right/wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
2) There ARE real other sides to this issue. For example shmucks calling things "piracy" when they are just fair-use. Or vile corporations pricing things WAY WAY too much, then ripping off the artist by paying them a fraction of the profits, then saying that "piracy" is killing their business. Or those same corporations, understanding that modern technology will destroy their buiness model, do everything they can to sabotage the new technology then complaining when people turn to piracy, not to steal the media, but instead just to put get it in a fair/reasonable format for their MP3 player that the )(*@#$ labels did not want them to.
Re:The thread poster has a wierd sense of right/wr (Score:2)
1) Real piracy is wrong, no matter what. There are NO 'positive effects', anymore than more allowing pick-pocketing has the positive effect of giving pick-pockets a job.
You're joking, right? Positive effects can stem from just about anything, so you're clearly overstating your argument. If there were no positive effects whatsoever, or if the negative effects dramatically outweighed the positive effects, I doubt that "piracy" would be as popular or widespread.
From my perspective, when it comese to a pers
Re:The thread poster has a wierd sense of right/wr (Score:2)
You are making a bad assumption about "postive" effects and about the word "stem" from. Just because a person likes it does not make it a 'positive' effect. Pleasure a man gets from rape is NOT a positive effect, no matter how much he enjoys it. It is a negative effect - the guy should not be enjoying the rape.
An evil act may create a situation where good is done, but not directly so it can't "stem" from it. A good
A Greater Threat Is Closing Fast (Score:4, Insightful)
Contrary to the above our current state pushes innovation and geopolitical invention. While the status quo states of the developed world push IP as a last ditch form of imperialism, developing nations and "pirates" derive new venues by running outside the highways of the status quo.
When these last issues are put to bed with one power group climbing into bed with others then the innovation that comes from the hurly burly of piracy will leave us with a status quo installed and fortified by international law. It may be that what is now seen as piracy is the last invigorated period of innovation we will see.
just my loose change
Futurama (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, I didn't watch Futurama until I downloaded some episodes quite some time since the first run was cancelled. Then I downloaded the entire series and watched them. Now I own all four volumes on DVD and am looking forward to the next run.
Maybe this example is the exception and not the rule, but the fact of the matter is that my "piracy" or "illegal download" led to Fox getting some cash out of my pocket for the DVD. Cash that they would not have gotten otherwise. At the end of the day, I don't care what the AP says or does not say: piracy has caused me to spend more money than I would have without it. I'm tired of crappy entertainment or lack of creative writing talent ([sarcasm]I can't *WAIT* for the remake of the revenge of the nerds[/sarcasm]). I want to use it and then decide if it's worth my money: if not I move on; if so I buy it.
If I can't do that then I'll abandon/boycott/ignore the whole damn thing until I can. It's like being in the matrix and taking the red pill: once you snap out of the mindless, lemming-like world of the MPAA/RIAA/whatever-there-is-for-TV-networks-AA you take note of how crappy it was being Thomas A. Anderson [wikipedia.org].
And I'll watch nothing but TV ads & infomercials before I get suckered into the "you don't really own X any more and you have to pay $1.99 ever time you want to watch it." Sorry, but fuck that. Keep your damn blue pill.
Re:Futurama (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact of the matter is, those who do not follow this pattern would not have paid for the content in the first place, so it is not in fact lost revenue.
The problem that still needs addressing is: Do we really want to limit cultural experiences to those who can afford them all (there's a limit)? I can't afford every CD I want to listen to, or every piece of artwork I'd like to look a
Ok, let's look at what copyright enfringing causes (Score:5, Insightful)
2: Video recorders cause hollywood to become worried because people can 'illegally' copy stuff, and they try to kill it, but it leads them into a prosperity never before seen, eventually spuring research into the dvd.
3: Filesharing causes media companies to become paranoid about loss of profit, then spurs the creation of online media delivery, again vastly increasing the potential profits of said media companies.
I wonder what the next thing is that they'll fight till it suddenly turns into a money maker?
Chris Rock says hello (Score:2)
Whats the big deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's kind of like expecting a congresscritter to have a clue about anything in the tech world. Their campaigns are financed by the same companies advertising in the newspaper. = Let's get the laws written the way we want!
Same story, different day - no news here move along....
not just in China (Score:4, Insightful)
And I don't think this point is lost on Microsoft either; they could have easily piracy-proofed their systems long ago, for example, by making hardware dongles part of their PC spec. But Microsoft probably doesn't want to do that; in addition to the benefits that piracy-provided differential pricing gives them, this way, the company also has power they would otherwise not have: power to raid companies and force violators to do their bidding.
Metalica (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, a band that sucks balls, would not have success. (One can argue the point about Metalica, but a lot of people seemed to like them at some point in time)
Will the world be a worse place, if the industrialized crop of music couldn't be sold, whatever the cause?
Is Copying Beneficial to Creator? Ask Linus (Score:3, Informative)
Another question one may want to ask is, "Can a person who releases his or her work so that is can be freely redistributed make money?" This is a question one may want to ask Linus Torvalds. Here is someone who has both money and fame for something he set up to be freely redistributed. The copyright issue is not going to be resolved by the courts or new laws. It is going to be resolved by the marketplace. If a cheap subsitute for petrol is discovered or if a cheap and simple way to increase the fuel mileage of vehicles is published, then the price of petrol will decrease drastically even if there are laws put in place to ban the way of increasing fuel efficency or petrol substitute. People tend to want to do what is right and beneficial - especially when doing so is practical. It is practical for some people to use and/or produce open source products. Many people make money doing so. It is also practical for many to use Linux. Other people find it more practical to spend lots of money in order to use Microsoft products. Microsoft products are pirated rampantly, yet Microsoft thrives on selling operating systems and office software. Open source software is also rampantly copied and shared, and companies thrive on selling open source products such as Linux.
When I intend to use commercial software on a regular basis, I buy it even when I can copy it from somewhere else and use it for free. I bought Windows XP and use it on one (of 32 computers I own) computer. If I have to replace the motherboard on the computer and Microsoft refused to reactivate Windows, I would download a hack to reactivate Windows XP without hesitation and not feel a bit guilty for doing so. Is this considered copyright infringement? YOU BET IT IS!!! However, I bought the product and refuse to be ripped off. Would I copy the Windows XP CD and give it to another? No, I would not. However, I do not consider copying Windows 98 and redistributing it wrong (No, I haven't done so) because of the fact that 1. Microsoft no longer sells '98 or supports it and 2. Microsoft has had over seven years exclusive copyright in order to make is money back as well as a handsome profit.
A LIMITED copyright on USEFUL works serves both producer and consumer very well, however, when the balence of power shifts entirely to the copyright owner and copyright becomes unlimited then there will be a backlash when it is feasable. This backlash is occuring in the music, software, and movie industries. Copying can be beneficial to both copyright owners as well as customers. I both download for free and purchase music, movies, and software. I do not however, buy product from members of the RIAA, BSA, or MPAA. I do not like bullies nor will I support them.
That is a different coin entirely. (Score:2, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What other side of the coin? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Actually, it is copyright that is an entirely recent development, for it appeared only a few hundred years ago in the West."
I believe you're referring to the Statute of Anne and the Licensing Act of 1662. It is no coincidence that these came about at around the same time as the printing press.
"The ancient world had no concept of "intellectual property", and creators of content in Greece and Rome understood that their work would be freely copied without compensation."
Because, of course, copying was a slow, tedious process, and most people were illiterate anyway. It was a non-issue.
Other examples of laws changing to keep up with the times:
"Our ancestors didn't need copyright laws, so we don't either" is a good rallying cry for P2P enthusiasts, but it breaks down on inspection. Those same P2P enthusiasts are likely very grateful for the new laws that protect them in the countless other parts of life where technology has continuously improved. While we may still wish that copyright law had remained in its pre-printing press (or even pre-broadband) form, we understand why it has not.
"However, the recent and geographically-limited genesis of copyright should nonetheless make one question if it is indeed a desirable institution, or merely a means of protecting the rich while limiting the rights of the many."
Copyright law protects us all. You have the right to say how your work is copied whether you make $10 a year, a million bucks a year, or even give it away for free. Lots of other laws help rich and poor alike.
Re:What other side of the coin? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Wrong, copying was quite efficient since there was a large class of slaves and copying of books was just as big an industry as today. And literacy in the ancient world was higher than people today often think."
Thank you for the clarification. I am always glad to learn something new. What was the literacy rate in ancient Greece? Were slaves also part of the target market for books? When you say that the book publishing industry was just as big back then, how big was it? I assume you don't mean in u
Re:What other side of the coin? (Score:4, Interesting)
People have since the beginning of civilization tried to claim things. In ancient times "intellectual property" mostly existed in the form of trade secrets. Recipes and processes that were closely guarded family trade secrets passed down from generation to generation. The primary reasons there were no laws for written works were: the high cost of reproduction, lack of audience, lack of awareness (how would somebody in Italy know their book was copied and taken to Greece).
Modern changes like mass production and digital communication, have also shifted the economy from valuing physical labor, to valuing IP. Hence the focus of ownership has also shifted from physical objects to ideas.
Re:What other side of the coin? (Score:2)
Amen to that. This is the difference between a painter (or a sculptor, or what have you) and an artist. Artists are in short supply.
Re:What other side of the coin? (Score:5, Insightful)
"IMHO, an artist should be concerned with one thing: the spreading of his art."
Not food, clothing, shelter, feeding their family?
I see on your xanga that you are married. Would your wife be happy if you told her that you would no longer try to earn money for what you do? I also see that you just bought a new Mac -- great! Did you buy that with money you earned by working?
"Art used to be thought of as a means of promoting thought and creativity but gradually began to be thought of as a means of profit and popularity."
Art has been made for profit since the history of currency. Shakespeare, Mozart, and countless other grand masters were in it for the money. Sure, they liked what they did, but they were in it for the money -- just as you might have chosen a career in programming or IT because you enjoy it, but you're doing it for the money.
"Are artists going to make as much money? Probably not. Should that be their focus? I don't think so."
Well, I think that people in [INSERT ANDREW NAGY'S PROFESSION HERE] are too money-focused, and paying people like Andrew should be voluntary. Will Andrew make as much money? Probably not. But we'll get [THE OUTPUT OF ANDREW NAGY'S PROFESSION] for free, or at least cheaper.
I also see from your xanga that you are a religous man. Please re-read Luke 6:31, Luke 10:27 and Matthew 7:12 and consider how you can reconcile your attitude toward artists with the teachings of Jesus.
Re:piracy works! (Score:2)
But slightly more seriously, if piracy somehow was stopped, would people switch to other operating systems, or would they go out and pay for a copy of Windows?
What would happen to the price of Windows as a result?
Addition... (Score:2)
What would happen to the price of Windows as a result?
I forgot to mention: In your answer you might want to consider richer countries (America/Europe/etc..) and poorer/3rd world countries separately.
Re:piracy works! (Score:2)
Re:piracy works! (Score:2)
Dell sell Linux PCs and you can purchase and use Linux on the desktop if you want. Microsoft still has a monopoly though because most people are forced to use Windows for one reason or another (For example they may already own $1000s of software and hardware that only works with Windows and not want to lose their
Re:Just So Long As You're Satisfied. (Score:2, Interesting)