No problem if you're happy with your $500 PC, but he's not referring to you -- he's referring to the "$2500 overclocked gaming monster" crowd on the high end, on the opposite side of the $300 Wal-Mart buyers. He is defining the boundaries.

You're correct that there's certainly a huge market for $500 PCs, and you're also correct that $500 PCs can play the majority game with adequate performance just fine.

The "$2500 overclocking gaming monster" crowd will easily spend $500 on their rig just on the case and the cooling alone.

And it's those people who can't fall into the "I pirate because I can't afford it" group. "I spent all of my money on my hardware, how do you expect me to actually pay for software?" is weak sauce.

"I would definitely want to know how they determined this... I could be making a legal backup copy to the cloud by using BitTorrent..."

That's another one of those imaginary loopholes; that is, one which pirates think will get them out of hot water, but in reality, aren't very effective. Sadly, if you opt to "back up" your legally acquired copy of PhotoShop or the latest album you bought by seeding it, it's still unauthorized distribution, no matter what your intent is. Making backups generally stays on the right side of the law only if you don't distribute those backups.

"on a more serious side... "manually verified"? wtf does that mean? how can they possibly know whether the person/organisation/computer seeding or leeching the file has a propere license to do so? I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't have such information so are they assuming that everything that wasn't in public domain or free was actually infringing?"

No; I think the article is clear that they looked up the content to see if it was infringing. It's pretty straightforward -- you can determine pretty quickly that Adobe hasn't released the full version of PhotoShop as freeware; nor is the new Rick Ross album being distributed in its entirety for free by the record label. If it's software, a game, an album, or some other media you haven't heard of, then you look it up -- as the article stated -- to learn what the distribution model is. A little common sense and a little Google go a long way. If you're still not sure what I mean, think about how you would undergo such a task, and then it's a safe bet that the researchers are just as smart as you, and did something similar.

Of course, even a smart person like you or I might misidentify the distribution rights of a file here and there, but the margin of error is likely pretty low. With a ratio of 99.7 to 0.3, a small error in either direction won't fundamentally change the conclusion.

Nope -- DMCA safe harbor. The same concept that got them out from under the Viacom suit would protect them in instance. You could say that DMCA allows the government to "ignore" sites like Google that play by the rules.

Safe harbors, just like the real-world locations from which they get their name, work both ways. They'll protect you if you use them -- Google knows this. But if you know it's there and you don't use it, you're asking for trouble.

If you're not sure what I mean, consider the hypothetical situation of sending Google a DMCA takedown request for links to a hundred torrent files, or to 100 infringing videos on YouTube. Most likely they'll remove the links quickly and professionally. Now, say you send that same list to your favorite pirate torrent site. They'll downright ignore you, or claim that it's too difficult to remove them. Of course they'll do that -- if they honored DMCA requests, they wouldn't have a reason to be in business.

In short, Google takes advantage of the DMCA safe harbor. Your favorite pirate torrent site does not. This is why the government "simply ignores" Google (and others who play by the rules) and goes after those do not. This is not duplicity. This is prosecuting people who break the law, and leaving the law abiders alone.

I break the speed limit. You do not. The cop pulls me over and ignores you. This is not duplicity, either.

I know that the "it's just like Google" meme is a popular one. I'd hoped that with the recent Google/Viacom decision, it would finally die. It looks like it may take a while longer.

Taking your question at face value: yeah, link sites have been busted for over a decade now.

In these cases the infringement isn't direct; they're typically charged with contributory infringement or vicarious infringement (Google can supply the nuances of each if you're interested). This site explains it well:

http://www.chillingeffects.org/piracy/faq.cgi#QID268

It's a recurring meme that simply linking to infringing material without actually hosting is a loophole that will allow you to avoid prosecution. As popular as this belief is, it's false.

If I understand you correctly... BitTorrent sites use advertising to offset hosting sites, and streaming sites use advertising to generate a profit?

This seems like a broad and arbitrary generalization. It also contradicts conversations I've had with BT site operators, who've claimed to make a profit on ads. Not much -- maybe $1 or $2K a month -- but enough. In fact, many BT site operators get into the business to make a profit -- it's not entirely about making information free and/or sticking it to the man. Do you have data that indicates otherwise?

"So why were BT sites traditionally the main target instead of profiteering streaming sites?"

The financial success of the infringer does not come into play in US copyright law. And, again, I believe you're making a gross generalization about sites' profitability. There are many, many factors relating to how much of a profit a site makes; traffic is almost certainly the biggest one. The exact technical details of how the infringement occurs (and whether it's direct, contributory, or vicarious) aren't an intrinsic factor in estimating profitability.

"That's a complete change of subject. I never said anything about fair use. We are talking about partial copy."

Right -- you claimed his quoting your post was infringement; I pointed out that this would actually fall under fair use doctrine in this instance. You're correct that it was not you who brought up fair use -- I did.

Specifically at what point does the random gibberish of a partial copy turn into a "work."

That's generally for the courts to decide. It's not as cut-and-dry as saying that you may distribute X minutes of a film that's Y minutes long (or insert Megabytes if you like). I think you already know this; you described it very well when you wrote "People think it's clear cut but it's really more a ball of wibbly wobbly law-y wawey."

Here's an interesting article on fair use as it applies to sampling music -- not quite the same as your question of how much of a movie you can distribute, but it should give an idea of the vagaries involved:

http://www.ivanhoffman.com/fairusemusic.html

"Wow 1 person doing two jobs and getting paid for each is a loophole? I think you need to look that word up."

This might be a reading comprehension issue. As I wrote, it's what many Slashdotters might consider to be a loophole. At any rate, the point is that they are not paid for each. You'll make more money per track sold if you write the lyrics for Song A and the music for Song B, than if you write both the words and music for Song A.

As for your question about why uploaders are sued, and not downloaders, it's simple: U.S. copyright law is largely about distribution. When we say "infringing copyright" it's a shorthand way of saying that we are infringing on the rights of the copyright holder; that is, the right to say how the product is distributed (I'm generalizing here but I hope you get the idea). Simply having a copy of a work that you didn't pay for isn't directly infringing on the rights of the rightsholder. Is that what you meant by a loophole?

"First: If copying part of a work isn't a defense then your post is infringement as it is partially a copy of copyright protected material."

No, his quoting of your post falls well within fair use doctrine. Slashdotters like to make fair use doctrine into something that it's not, but this is an instance where it definitely applies. Seriously -- everybody should understand this.

As others have pointed out, people with a basic understanding of the law tend to imagine there are loopholes where there aren't. Copyright law is one area that's rife with imaginary loopholes. It doesn't work that way, for a couple of reasons. First, gaping loopholes tend to get closed upon discovery. Secondly, and more importantly, the court system isn't made up of unthinking robots -- it's run by real people, and the laugh test and the duck test tend apply in the courts just as they do at your place of work. The courts also know slippery slopes when they see them; that's what your "6th word" and "digit 1" examples appear to be.

To be sure, copyright law does contain various instances of what many Slashdotters might consider to be "loopholes," but they tend to be to the benefit of the copyright owner, not the pirate. For instance, in the US the law states that when you sell a recording you must pay the composer and lyricist about eight cents apiece (these are on top of contractual royalties), but if you are both the composer and the lyricist, you don't get to double-dip and collect $0.16. Since the big corporations tend to get to write the laws, this won't change soon.

"Why not spend this much effort going after other widespread crimes such as rape and human trafficking?"

I agree with your sentiments, but this is begging the question. I don't think anybody here can quote reliable figures on the effort spent on copyright law infringement vs. enforcement of laws relating to rape and human trafficking. I can certainly provide some anecdotal evidence: when somebody I knew was raped a number of years back, the swift attention provided by multiple police agencies resulted in the capture of the suspect (a BART train was stopped and the suspect was apprehended). The justice system was applied with equal force and the rapist got the punishment he deserved. The efforts were a huge order of magnitude beyond the attention they would have paid to, say, a report that my company was pirating PhotoShop. Your assertion that governments spend more effort on copyright violators than rapists and human traffickers is a bit shocking.

"Also, shouldn't the government be spending a lot more time worrying about environmental damage and climate change?"

Yes. But this is not related to the subject of file sharing. Beware of false dichotomies.

"I know CES doesn't want to lose money, but really these small businesses are just moving out of the way for the big guys to get more booths. Intel isn't going to bring people back to a hotel room, and the more companies you have in Las Vegas that week the bigger CES will be, whether they're in their room or on the floor."

This is not completely accurate. Plenty of mid- to large-size companies are pulling out of the LVCC, too. It's getting harder and harder for the CEA to sell floor space. The spaces vacated by companies going to booths is NOT all being taken up by other companies. If it were, there would not be a problem -- but that's just not the case.

"The Las Vegas Convention Center is not a hotel, so there is no "swindling viewers up to their private quarters" - in fact, the hotels that rent the largest number of suites to companies (Venetian, Bellagio, Wynn, etc) are no where near the convention center."

The Wynn is reasonably close to the LVCC; that's why many companies have suites there.

"Many of these companies have no presence at the convention, so how are they "swindling away" anyone? Many of the meetings/demos are private, have no interest/intention of showing their products in public yet, and have been set up between various parties well in advance, so it's not even taking away revenue from the CEA."

Ah, but many companies are fleeing the LVCC and moving to suites. Revenue is being taken away from the CEA. Logitech quit renting booth space a couple of years ago and moved to a cheaper meeting room in the LVCC. Creative Labs downsized their booth dramatically and held their meetings in a suite at the Wynn. XM/Sirius moved from the show floor to the Bellagio last year. These are just some examples in the industry I'm familiar with, but there are many, many more. This is why you probably noticed that the LVCC was a bit lonelier this year than it was last year, and if the trend continues, will get even more sparsely populated. There's still traffic at the LVCC, to be sure, but CEA sees the writing on the wall.

There's a secondary effect: as buyers get more used to visiting hotel suites, rather than going to the show floor, traffic to the LVCC is further reduced and creating even less incentive for vendors to place booths there. I didn't even need to buy a show pass this year.

"Management and CES could very well have been protecting the interests and quality of the show."

CES gets more money from you when you have a booth at the convention center. More and more companies -- BIG companies -- are abandoning booths and, instead, renting suites or ballrooms at the hotels. CES is watching their revenues evaporate, and is retaliating by punishing vendors.

Note that this is largely happening to vendors who are turning suites into full-blown display showcases; basically, a booth in a suite. Folks who use suites for meetings, with a few odd products on display (ie. those who might not have had a booth in the first place), have not been hassled.

I like your idea, but Congress won't enact it because the government gets the money anyway.

The zeitgeist is that in the post-industrial age, protecting the interests of the large-scale copyright holders is in the best interest of the US economy. Microsoft, Disney, and countless smaller companies like them bring a metric buttload of cash into the economy; revenues that will become even more important as more and more manufacturing moves to China. Our government is funded by the taxes paid by US-based copyright holders.

If the US starts taxing copyrights themselves, that's simply less profit to tax at the end of the year.

I'm perhaps presenting an overly simplistic view of corporate tax, but it's clear that when it comes to how copyright holders are treated, the average Slashdotter and the US governments are at the ends of the spectrum. Your typical slashdotter would like to see companies who make excessive revenues on copyrighted works to be punished; perhaps even to be made extinct. Yet these same companies are our government's lifeblood.

"And since I'm not an expert in philosophy and logic, I'd be curious to know what part of my statement is a straw man."

Sure, I'll be glad to help.

"The initial statement (assuming the person posting it is correct) was that the manual labor workers weren't getting paid enough money because of people illegally obtaining copies of the movies that they worked on."

Correct -- but you may be misinterpreting it by adding "from royalties" after the "paid enough money" statement.

"My response was that it doesn't matter how many people pay to see a movie and how many obtain it illegally, because the workers have already been paid the only salary that they would ever get from that movie."

And that's the straw man there -- the movie industry wasn't claiming that the salaries of the union folks who worked on a particular film were scaled by the sales of that film. If they were, then it would be an easy argument to shoot down, because it is simply false.

So, you ask, what is the actual argument they were making, as opposed to your straw man version? You've actually put it better than I could:

"Of course you could try to argue that reduced sales would lead to less work for them, but the report of record income seems to counter that pretty well."

Not only have you correctly stated the point of the ads, but you've also come up with a defensible argument against it -- without having to resort to a straw man. And that was exactly my point -- it's easy enough to use evidence to cast doubt on the film industry's position, without misrepresenting their arguments.

I hope this helps.

"Past a certain point, YOU PERSONALLY are not going to benefit from any more sales of the product even if YOU PERSONALLY contributed to it's production."

You're correct -- but that's not the argument that was presented.

There may be some confusion over my use of the term "straw man." I refer to the logical fallacy; defined as misrepresenting an opponent's position.

When those ads started airing, the retort from lots of piracy enthusiasts here on Slashdot was something to the effect of "last time I checked, all these set painters and other guys in the ads don't get points off the back end, so piracy doesn't effect them! They've already gotten paid!"

It's a straw man because the ads were not stating that the craft/trade people were paid based on the sales of a film, and thus the point, as misrepresented by Slashdotters, was invalid. That's exactly how to construct a straw man: misrepresent your opponent's argument and then tear down that misrepresented argument, and not the actual argument.

"Either way, it's probably not going to matter. A bad film is going to bomb and a good film is going to make profits for the studio that they studio will never admit to. Piracy won't change that. All Piracy does is inflate the sense of entitlement felt by the high level management at the studio. They mistake demand for the product at the ZERO price point as real value."

It goes both ways. Most pirates claim that they would not have purchased the product anyway, or they claim that their piracy might actually improve sales of the product. A few pirates do openly admit that they pirate to save money, but -- again -- they seem to be in the minority.

"They mistake demand for the product at the ZERO price point as real value."

It has a certain value that's larger than zero, and less than the retail value of the total number of pirated copies. Everybody has their opinion on what this value is, and since nobody can truly know, everybody's opinion is valid.