an honest look at piracy...

[deadrats]

as the title suggests; with this post i will be examining piracy, as it pertains to both content and software, with the purpose of generating a healthy and honest discussion of the subject. while the general ideas i am about to express have been formulated over a number of years, it wasn't until a few days ago when someone, in another post, asked for help with some video files of questionable legality and the responses he received that really made me decide to post what follows.

copyright: it is my opinion that the copyright laws, as they currently stand in the usa, are perhaps some of the most ridiculous and one-sided laws ever conceived. copyright, for those that don't know, was originally intended to last a fairly short time, i believe it was 15 years, during which time the creator of the content could reap the economic benefit of his/her work and there after the creation would pass into the public domain. this is no longer the case. the last time i checked, copyright had been extended to over 100 years, or more importantly was retroactively extended, so even works that were about to pass into the public domain at the time of extension instead stayed the property of the creators.

so what?

in order to understand why this is a bad thing allow me to ask you, the reader, a question: when you work for someone, how many times does he pay you for the job you did? in other words, when this work week is done and you have received your paycheck when next week rolls around do you expect to get paid for the week you were already paid for again? when you take your car to the mechanic for a brake job, you pay him when the job is done, do you go back and pay him the following week again for the same brake job? in short, in no other method of earning a living is the expectation that one will get paid repeatedly for the job he did only once, yet that is precisely what copyright holders expect, create something once and get paid forever.

to put the unfairness of extended copyright into the point where it exceeds the average lifespan into perspective, i'm sure that we are all familiar with the "happy birthday" song, you know the song we have been singing to one another since we were in grade school. well it may shock you to know that said song is copyrighted, it is not in the public domain, and technically we are not allowed to perform that song without permission from the copyright holder and compensation to him for using it. this is why they never sing that song in any chain restaurant whenever it's someone's birthday, each chain, like Friday's has their own original birthday song, the copyright to which is owned by them. the same holds true for some christmas songs, which again is why major chains will have their own original songs composed for events.

to expand on this: how many of you know what "the classic 39" are? the term refers to the 39 episodes of the honeymooners that aired from 1955 to 1956, which are considered not only the best honeymooners ever produced but also some of the funniest sitcom episodes of all time. these are all copyrighted works, if you download and/or upload them, you are violating copyright. these are episodes that are part of this countries history, they aired 52-53 years ago (i'm only 38) yet they haven't passed into the public domain and in fact won't pass until i have long left this world.

the same holds true for the 3 stooges, abbott and costelo, the bugs bunny cartoons, the list goes on. imagine if copyright had been around during mozart's or beethoven's time, it's likely that their works would be copyrighted content, seeing as how there has been a push by some groups to try and get copyright pushed into infinity.

but it gets worse than that; technically recordings of historical events, such as king's "i have a dream speech", the moon landing, the fall of the berlin wall, video of the vietnam war, the korean war, kennedy's speeches, and so on, are all copyrighted recordings, you are committing piracy if you were to "illegally" obtain a copy of those events.

i'm going to cut this short for the moment, as i want everything to sink in and i will be continuing my examination of piracy, in follow up posts within this thread.

feel free to share your thoughts...

[bendixG15]

Spare us, this subject has been beaten to death.

Most everyone is either for or against it ... very few undecideds for you to convert.

BTW, I prefer the old style grammer, using caps. If you have no respect for the rules of grammar, then ... (enough said)

[thecoalman]

do you go back and pay him the following week again for the same brake job?

Your analogy doesn't hold water, e.g you can't expect the brake mechanic to fix your brakes again just because he already did it once. The trouble is you're assuming the value of the content is going to be cheap for only doing it once, for example if a very popular band releases an album who's going to buy that first disc for a couple of million which is what they would value it at? A better analogy IMO to how copyright works would be comparing it to a condo/hotel. You can purchas a room for the night (disc rental), you can purchase a condo (single copy you own) or you can buy the hotel (the copyright itself).

The value of any work that can be easily copied is being compensated for copies. If an artist makes a disc and he decides that value is worth $1 million dollars there is no way he can ever get that money from selling his work once, copyright provides a vehicle to allow him to do that. Without copyright an artists work can no longer hold value and there is no incentive to create it in the first place.

Although I don't agree with many of the ways copyright laws are used I stand by the rights of the person holding the copyright to determine how their material is used. If you don't agree with their stipulations you can either a) attempt to buy the work in it's entirety b)don't buy it all.

[Xylob the Destroyer]

Performing your assigned duties and creating a work of art on your volition are two completely separate things.
This goes beyond apples and oranges.

Fixing brakes and writing a novel are nothing alike.

It's a generational thing. So many have recently "grown up" in the 'modern' world and expect everything to be handed to them for free - it sickens me beyond belief.
Just because you CAN download something for free doesn't mean you SHOULD.
Just because you CAN shoplift at KMart doesn't mean you SHOULD.
Just because you CAN shoot somebody in the back of the head doesn't mean you SHOULD.
The simple fact of being able to do something doesn't automatically make it your RIGHT to do it.

Sure, current copyright laws are written specifically to make $$$$$ for huge corporations and NOT to protect those individuals who actually created the works.
I understand that. But it's not what pisses people off. What pisses people off is that they are "branded" as a pirate when they break a law. People figure they in the RIGHT when they break the law if it's a law that they don't like.
******* cry-babies.
They try to compare themselves to great men and women by saying they are social revolutionaries.
I can't go further without turning this into a political post -- if you don't like the law do what needs to be done to change it.
VOTE.
Write your congress representative.
Educate youself in the ways of the government and how laws are created.
Breaking the law won't make it go away.
Take the time to effect change or shut the hell up.
Bitching about it on a tech forum isn't going to get you anywhere.

[thecoalman]

Just to add any arguments that can be made from either side is going to become irrelevant in the not so distant furture. Technology will emerge that will successfully prevent everyone from making copies, it's inevitable. Copyright laws at that point will become moot as companies will be able to enforce the stipulation they want by their own means without having to rely on the law. People will either continue to flock to the stores to buy the latest crap being crammed down their throats or they'll wake up and stop buying the product. The market will dictate how this plays out in the future, we can argue about what is right and what is wrong all we want but in the end it really makes no difference.

[Xylob the Destroyer]

...The market will dictate how this plays out in the future, we can argue about what is right and what is wrong all we want but in the end it really makes no difference.

this smiley will have to do since I couldn't find one clapping it's hands.

[deadrats]

part 2; is piracy such a bad thing?

the answer, as far as i'm concerned, is no, for a variety of reasons:

1) there can be no question that music and movie piracy benefits the computer hardware industry. the fact of the matter is that where it not for the interest generated by "illegal" music ad movie downloads, the demand for faster hardware wouldn't exist. imagine if napster, and it's brethren, had never existed, the average end user would never have heard of audio transcoding and editing, and thus there would be no need for faster cpu's, faster/more ram and faster/bigger hard drives. eliminate the downloading even the average size music file and there would be no need for faster connection speeds.

the same holds true for movie downloads, in all honesty a lowly (by todays standards) 2.53ghz P4, with 1 gig of ddr 400, couple to a 60 gig hard drive, running a linux distro with a custom compiled kernel and the slowest dsl package is more than enough to surf the web, run a small business, create and maintain websites, etc.

the fact remains, and is confirmed by review sites using transcoding as benchmarks, that the "illegal" downloading of copyrighted content greatly drove demand for faster and faster computers and broadband connections. ask yourselves this: how many members of this forum, if they had the money, would upgrade to the fastest nehalem when it is available and 50mb/20mb adsl if they had the chance? why do you think they would, what would that need that much bandwidth and computing power for?

then there's this reality: if piracy hadn't become so prevalent, would sites such as this and doom 9, exist? professional video editors don't need to come to sites like this to ask questions, they're pros, they know what they're doing. likewise, if it wasn't for the "illegal" ripping and sharing of dvds would mpeg4 codecs, such as microsoft's mpeg4 v3, divx (which originally was a reverse engineered mpeg4 v3), xvid, snow, real media, etc exist? would alternative containers such as mkv, ogg, ogm, rm, etc exist?

professionals that deal with video only use dv (or some variant), mjpeg, for dvds it's only mpeg-2, lcpm, ac3 or mp2 audio, and for hi def it's only h264, mpeg-2 or vc-1. remove piracy and most of the content on this web site disappears.

and finally there's this reality, piracy is a form of "civil disobedience", a way of getting back at greedy corporations that have been screwing artists and the paying public for years.

how many times have you bought a cd because you heard a song you liked on the radio just to find out that the rest of the songs absolutely sucked? that's isn't stealing from the general public, when a record company produces a catchy song with the intentions of enticing you to buy the cd knowing full well that the rest of the content is crap? why don't they just release singles, so that you can buy just what you want? better yet, why don't they allow you to custom create a cd with just the songs you like? (<--a music store tried to offer this service and got sued almost immediately). why is it ok for the record companies to steal from the buying public and not for the buying public to steal right back?

why is it ok for record companies to steal from their artists? meatloaf has famously sued his record label over their under reporting the number of "bat out of hell albums" sold, as have numerous other artists, courtney love once famously ripped the music labels a new one during the napster days, outlining in detail how the labels steal money from their artists, is it so wrong for the public to steal from a thief?

now don't get me wrong, i am not condoning whole sale piracy, as these companies do invest large sums of money in order to produce their products, but there needs to be some reform. as it stands now the riaa, mpaa and bsa basically dictate legislation by buying politicians through their lobbyists.

some companies do seem to be seeing the light, as some have started to include a standard definition dvd with the blu-ray dvd, so that even if you don't have a blu-ray player now when you do finally get one you don't have to re-buy the movie or more likely find a torrent somewhere and download it. i think that's the right way to go and quite frankly for a lousy $20 it makes more sense to just buy the movie and get both blu-ray and dvd instead of waiting days, sometimes weeks, to download it.

but they need to expand on this: how about including a dvd with music videos with every cd you buy? there are tons of music videos i would love to get my hands on, but they are not sold anywhere, if you want them you have to search the net for "pirated" tv captures and download low quality copies. i only remember shania twain having a dvd with her music and music videos, more artists need to follow that lead and more people would be willing to purchase their content legally rather than steal it.

and lastly, these big corporations need to make a gesture to their potential customers and support rolling back copyright so that eventually their creations end up in the public domain, belonging to everyone, as they should. perhaps the original 15 year, maybe even 20 year limit would be fair, after all patents have a time limit (i believe it's 10 years), why should copyright be any different. we are already starting to see some signs of this as some older tv shows can now be watched for free, legally, on you tube and just today i saw that myspace was offering an episode of married with children, for viewing, free of charge, legally.

if corporate america made the gesture to show that they don't just view the general public as a cash cow to be milked dry then maybe more of the general public would be willing to honor and respect a copyright length of a reasonable time limit.

[deadrats]

Just to add any arguments that can be made from either side is going to become irrelevant in the not so distant furture. Technology will emerge that will successfully prevent everyone from making copies, it's inevitable. Copyright laws at that point will become moot as companies will be able to enforce the stipulation they want by their own means without having to rely on the law. People will either continue to flock to the stores to buy the latest crap being crammed down their throats or they'll wake up and stop buying the product. The market will dictate how this plays out in the future, we can argue about what is right and what is wrong all we want but in the end it really makes no difference.

you are so wrong. it is not possible to prevent the copying of digital data, as data is stored as a sequence of electrical states on a hard drive, it's absolutely trivial to use assembler to copy those electrical states to another location.

the reason some drm seems to be unbreakable, such as apple's or microsoft's drm, is because no one really wants to be bothered, you can just find the content in an unlocked format elsewhere. but if all files started using similar such drm it wouldn't be long before a good programmer sat there with a hex editor and a run time debugger and cracked that drm within a few hours.

drm only stops those that don't know what they're doing, any good programmer can figure out how it works and write a patch for it, if you can drm a file you can un-drm it, it just takes a bit of time.

[Supreme2k]

It's a generational thing. So many have recently "grown up" in the 'modern' world and expect everything to be handed to them for free - it sickens me beyond belief.
Just because you CAN download something for free doesn't mean you SHOULD.
Just because you CAN shoplift at KMart doesn't mean you SHOULD.
Just because you CAN shoot somebody in the back of the head doesn't mean you SHOULD.
The simple fact of being able to do something doesn't automatically make it your RIGHT to do it.
...........

They try to compare themselves to great men and women by saying they are social revolutionaries.

I am not for piracy. It has not and will not effect me and my business.

I can somewhat see that (maybe) Xylob wasn't making a direct correlation between the things, but the proximity of the subjects in his rant, coupled with the recurring instances of it of late, has me a bit irked.

Copyright infringement is not theft. It should not be compared to it. Downloading should never be lumped in with robbery or even "simply' shoplifting. It ESPECIALLY should not be compared to, or even slightly alluded to, murder.

If it can even be compared to shoplifting, then the opponents of copyright have every right (no pun) to compare themselves to Ghandi or MLK.

I know that the "Just because..." list may have been for effect, but it is just so damn wrong. Slippery slopes have got to be the most retarded method of argument (beside ad hominem).

[Xylob the Destroyer]

...Copyright infringement is not theft. It should not be compared to it. Downloading should never be lumped in with robbery or even "simply' shoplifting.

Why not? Downloading legally? No, definitely not theft.
Downloading illegally? Absolutely theft. 100%.
If you clock in at work at 0800, clock our for lunch at 1200, back in at 1230 and then leave at 1400 and have your buddy clock you out at 1600 this is also theft.

It ESPECIALLY should not be compared to, or even slightly alluded to, murder.

True.

I know that the "Just because..." list may have been for effect...

Mostly.

If it can even be compared to shoplifting, then the opponents of copyright have every right (no pun) to compare themselves to Ghandi or MLK.

WTF?!?! They're stealing, plain and simple. Comparing somebody who illegally downloads music &/or movies to Ghandi or MLK is simply disgusting.
Surely that kind of remark was added only for effect.
I know that the concept of "ownership" is far more complicated when applied to works of art or ideas (compared to objects), but copyright owners are not oppressing/enslaving entire nations or cultures.
You gotta be smoking some good shit...

[Supreme2k]

There is no such thing as "downloading illegally". If it is available on the 'net, then who ever is distributing is doing the lawbreaking. It is not a double edge crime like drugs, where buying or selling is illegal.
The time clock analogy is pretty poor and has nothing to do with this. It is actually fraud that you would be committing.

If you are going to compare apples to oranges (copyright infringement to theft), then they (opponents) can do it too.

[thecoalman]

1) ....... the demand for faster hardware wouldn't exist. imagine if napster, and it's brethren, had never existed, the average end user would never have heard of audio transcoding and editing, and thus there would be no need for faster cpu's, faster/more ram and faster/bigger hard drives. eliminate the downloading even the average size music file and there would be no need for faster connection speeds.

The demand for faster hardware is driven primarily by gaming industry. Faster connection speeds are hindered by people using p2p networks especially now as people start using the internet for legitimate downloads of video. Illegal file traffic is clogging network capacity which is resulting in bandwidth caps. So in fact the legitimate user is penalized for illegal downloads.

how many times have you bought a cd because you heard a song you liked on the radio

Never as I'm smart enough to not buy something unless I know what I'm buying. Why should record company be blamed for your poor decision? Truthfully, your a big boy and should take responsibility for your own actions.

why is it ok for the record companies to steal from the buying public and not for the buying public to steal right back?

Now you're getting absurd, see above...

but they need to expand on this: how about including a dvd with music videos with every cd you buy? there are tons of music videos i would love to get my hands on, but they are not sold anywhere, if you want them you have to search the net for "pirated" tv captures and download low quality copies. i only remember shania twain having a dvd with her music and music videos, more artists need to follow that lead and more people would be willing to purchase their content legally rather than steal it.

You can certainly suggest this but no one is under the obligation to provide you with something if they don't want to. As I said in my post above the market will dictate how this plays out. If there is demand for something business will fill the void, if a product is failing they will either rethink their business model or go out of business. If you really want to change things vote with your wallet. You do realize there is many alternatives for music besides what large corporations are cramming down your throat? If you want to listen to Shania Twain that is choice you have made not the record company. I'll have to ask the same question I ask everyone that comes up with this argument.... if you do not like the content or the stipulations provided under the license why did you purchase it?

you are so wrong. it is not possible to prevent the copying of digital data, .

And if this data is encrypted then you have copy of a bunch of useless 1's and 0's. That's really besides the point. Note I said in the future, I'm very aware at the present time there is no practical means to prevent copies of material being made. Might point is hat tomorrow, 5 years from now... or even a decade you will see content that will not be copyable. Prepare yourself because it will happen.

[thecoalman]

There is no such thing as "downloading illegally". If it is available on the 'net, then who ever is distributing is doing the lawbreaking. It is not a double edge crime like drugs, where buying or selling is illegal.

I'm not going to get into the semantics as I think it's really irrelevant but if you have copy of material you have no rights to then you are breaking the law.

edit:

The severity of any actions taken should be determined by the extent of the infringement. Simply possessing materiel you have no rights too should be left to the civil courts. Making them accessible should be escalated to criminal penalties, criminal proceedings should be tempered by the extent of your actions. Sharing files publicly should be left to fines but the wholesale distribution of material for commercial gain or those that can result in sever economic damages like the release of the Gn'R album should be dealt with in jail time.

[MeDiCo_BrUjO]

All their hardwork is brought to naught.

Sitting in my garage with my guitar in my hand smoking some weed and hanging with a bunch of friends while jamming and composing some songs isn't exactly my concept of "hard work"... lol



Even Bono said that he knows he is extremely overpaid and spoiled.

Now look at them yo-yos thats the way you do it
You play the guitar on the mtv
That aint workin thats the way you do it
Money for nothin and chicks for free
Now that aint workin thats the way you do it
Lemme tell ya them guys aint dumb
Maybe get a blister on your little finger
Maybe get a blister on your thumb

We gotta install microwave ovens
Custom kitchen deliveries
We gotta move these refrigerators
We gotta move these colour tvs

See the little ****** with the earring and the makeup
Yeah buddy thats his own hair
That little ****** got his own jet airplane
That little ****** hes a millionaire

We gotta install microwave ovesns
Custom kitchens deliveries
We gotta move these refrigerators
We gotta move these colour tvs

I shoulda learned to play the guitar
I shoulda learned to play them drums
Look at that mama, she got it stickin in the camera
Man we could have some fun
And hes up there, whats that? hawaiian noises?
Bangin on the bongoes like a chimpanzee
That aint workin thats the way you do it
Get your money for nothin get your chicks for free

We gotta install microwave ovens
Custom kitchen deliveries
We gotta move these refrigerators
We gotta move these colour tvs, lord

Now that aint workin thats the way you do it
You play the guitar on the mtv
That aint workin thats the way you do it
Money for nothin and your chicks for free
Money for nothin and chicks for free

[Supreme2k]

There is no such thing as "downloading illegally". If it is available on the 'net, then who ever is distributing is doing the lawbreaking. It is not a double edge crime like drugs, where buying or selling is illegal.

I'm not going to get into the semantics as I think it's really irrelevant but if you have copy of material you have no rights to then you are breaking the law.

If someone has a site called (for example, not real) eddiesmp3.com, and he is distributing songs for free (or even pay) from that site, the downloader is not liable for "illegal downloads". It is not up to the person getting the material to find out if the site is authorized to distribute. I have not gone through all of iTunes when I bought a couple of songs from there, so I don't truly know if they're legit. On that note, have you heard of phishing sites? Most of them look exactly like the site which they've copied.

Most of what is called "illegal downloading" happens in bittorrent and other p2p. Many require you to share as you download, resulting in you being a part of the distribution. It can be proven that you do not have rights to distribute, but with a simple one-way download, it can't be proven that you knew that the distributor is authorized.

By that "illegal downloads"' logic, every time you watch copyrighted content on Youtube, you are breaking that "law". It would be assumed that you know exactly who is authorized to distribute the material

[Dv8ted2]

I liked it better before everyone thought everyone was a thief. I have created works before and if people liked them I was grateful. Somewhere along the line, there was a fundamental shift in thinking that mistakenly puts consumers on the wrong end of the barrel.

This is not a good thing. If we are going to live in a paranoid world, the people should not distribute anything. This is a bit extreme, but would solve the problem.

Myself, I am tired of buying things and then hearing that I am a thief. It is this king of warped logic that makes people resort to downloading. I am not advocating such actions, but this should not be a society that criminalizes everything.

Why not line everyone up and shoot them? The price for breathing and living in this world will be lined up in front of the firing squad.

[Conquest10]

Going with Supreme's "illegal downloading" thing, if you purchase a bootleg anything and find out its bootleg and report the person, would the police have to arrest you for "illegal purchase"?

[Conquest10]

They are not paid when it comes to piracy. All their hardwork is brought to naught.

Now that is BS and you know it. Since we live in this PC society I HAVE to begin by saying copyright infringement is illegal, blah, blah, blah...

BUT, these copyright claims these days are ridiculous. In the example of musicians. They are the creators of the copyrighted materials. Yet, they see almost none of the money that people pay for the right to be allowed to listen to their music.

What's even more ridiculous is when they started airing segments from crew members talking about how when you pirate movies you are taking food from their children's mouth. Get the f%^& out of here with that. These crew members are union workers and they get paid. They are not going to work under the contingency that they'll do the work for free unless the movie grosses a certain amount.

So I'll end with that PC line again. Copyright infringement is illegal. The problem I have is the same as I do with Homeland Security (no politics) in that because of the actions of a few, there is a HUGE overreaction and now all of a sudden everyone's a potential criminal and far-reaching laws are enacted.

[Conquest10]

Another situation I just thought of. What do you absolute pro-copyright laws guys think of people buying the rights to something for the sole purpose of not allowing anyone to ever see it again?

[adam]

copyright, for those that don't know, was originally intended to last a fairly short time, i believe it was 15 years, during which time the creator of the content could reap the economic benefit of his/her work and there after the creation would pass into the public domain. this is no longer the case. the last time i checked, copyright had been extended to over 100 years, or more importantly was retroactively extended, so even works that were about to pass into the public domain at the time of extension instead stayed the property of the creators.

While I agree that current copyright terms are probably far too long, I think its difficult to compare them to original terms because the world is completely different now.

The very first copyright term was actually perpetual, but the first copyright "law" was about 15 years like you say (14 to be exact) but that was England in 1710 and literally the ONLY thing the law even contemplated was the printing press making copies of literary works. This just isn't a proper baseline for today.

The first US copyright was 28 years (14 renewable for 14) but this was long before the invention of television, motion pictures, distributable sound recordings or even radio. The first US copyright terms that actually took these technologies into consideration set the copyright life at 56 years (28 renewable for 28) but this was before computers, VCRs, or tape recorders. Piracy as we know it today simply didn't exist then.

The first "modern day" copyright was probably the standard created at the Berne Convention in 1886 and it was life + 50 years. So to be honest, I don't think copyright terms have ever really been short, when viewed in light of WHAT they have actually protected. No matter how you look at it, something like a motion picture has just become such a huge animal with so many thousands of companies and millions of dollars invested in it, that you have to expect a long term of protection before something that massive passes completely into the public domain.

Now the latest extension in the US added another 20 years and there really wasn't much reason given for why we needed longer terms, it was just apparent that some very notable works were about to become public domain. That's not the right way to approach the issue and sets a scary precedent.

Ultimately, I think the length of a copyright is one of the least important concerns. Let's face it, the majority of the content that is pirated, and consequently policed, is going to be firmly outside of the public domain no matter what the copyright term is. If someone gets caught downloading the latest Justin Timberlake album off of a P2P program, they don't really have much of an argument that copyrights last too long.

[guns1inger]

Another situation I just thought of. What do you absolute pro-copyright laws guys think of people buying the rights to something for the sole purpose of not allowing anyone to ever see it again?

Like the Star Wars Christmas Special ?

And why is it that anyone who disagrees that the world and everyone in it owes you a living is therefore rabidly pro-copyright/capitalism etc. ?

I don't agree with all the copyright protection being given as political favours, but I also don't agree that everyone but DeadRats should have to pay for the fact that he chose HD DVD instead of BluRay, or was stupid enough to buy a CD full of filler because he liked the single. The world doesn't own you a living. If you buy a CD and then decide it is mostly filled with crap, the record company did not steal from you. You made a bad choice. Live with it.

Yes, the record and film industries have too much political protection in the current climate. Yes, there are some major anomalies in the laws in most countries, and the law generally lags behind the current state of society. It always has, and until it gets a crystal ball or a time machine, it always will.

But the law isn't the major problem here. The problem is a society that has slowly devolved to one where the individual no longer feels that they need to take responsibility for their own actions, and is no longer made accountable. There is always someone or something else to blame and an expectation of restitution for every perceived wrong. And for the most part, these wrongs can be traced back to the stupidity of the individual who now feels aggrieved.

[Supreme2k]

There is always someone or something else to blame and an expectation of restitution for every perceived wrong. And for the most part, these wrongs can be traced back to the stupidity of the individual who now feels aggrieved.

Along these lines, I believe that both sides are wrong.

You have people who think that if you can download it for free, you should or must. That their internet connection entitles them to never have to pay for digital content again.

You also have people who blame their failures on "piracy". For example, "We lost $15 billion on 'Gigli' because everyone downloaded it and didn't pay for a movie ticket or DVD."

[guns1inger]

For example, "We lost $15 billion on 'Gigli' because everyone downloaded it and didn't pay for a movie ticket or DVD."

Hands up all those who downloaded Gigli ?

I agree totally that the numbers cited by both the recording and film industries are completely made up. They have never been able to truly justify any of the 'projections', nor have they ever acknowledged that sometimes people don't go to see crap films. While people continue to go an see movies like Meet The Spartans, Disaster Movie and Norbit, they don't have to.

[thecoalman]

If someone has a site called (for example, not real) eddiesmp3.com, and he is distributing songs for free (or even pay) from that site, the downloader is not liable for "illegal downloads". It is not up to the person getting the material to find out if the site is authorized to distribute.

Ignorance is not an argument, having said that I doubt that anyone would have to worry about legal problems under such circumstances but instead would be required to destroy the material. Law enforcement doesn't always have to follow the law to the letter, for example if you purchased what was a stolen car from what you thought was a legitimate car dealer and was able to provide all the required legal documents showing ownership this would show you had a very legitimate reason to believe it was aleagal purchase. You still don't get to keep the car though.

Buyer beware....

[Supreme2k]

If someone has a site called (for example, not real) eddiesmp3.com, and he is distributing songs for free (or even pay) from that site, the downloader is not liable for "illegal downloads". It is not up to the person getting the material to find out if the site is authorized to distribute.

Ignorance is not an argument, having said that I doubt that anyone would have to worry about legal problems under such circumstances but instead would be required to destroy the material.

Trust me or not, I've helped settle a case where that exact thing happened. We had the IP addresses of the downloaders thrown out (and not even investigated) because there was enough evidence, just on the surface, for Good Faith.
Again, you can't use a physical item analogy, as digital content is ethereal. You can retrieve a car (or necklace, tv, etc.) but you can't prove that a downloaded MP3 is not legit, especially if transferred to a different medium (not to mention the overwhelming hassle of making sure that it has really been erased/destroyed.)

[gll99]

I don't mind paying for the content I view and listen to the same as I do for cable, so the producer and distributor are compensated, but I would like to remove any barriers to lateral or downward conversion. In my thinking just because you own the VHS doesn't mean you should copy a friend's dvd or if you own the DVD version you shouldn't think you can copy a friends Blu-Ray but you should for example be able to convert a Blu-Ray disc to DVD or divx or any equal or lesser format to watch on a portable player (ipod etc...) but only for personal use.

In Canada they want to introduce a law that would legalize this but at the same time make it illegal to break any encryption to do this. Here's the killer, the fine for breaking the encryption would be $20,000. That's the ridiculous part. To sell the idea to the public, first they say conversion is fine for a purchased video or song which appears fair to both distributor and consumer but then come up with that one sided impediment to fairness. The proposed fine is outlandish and doesn't fit the "crime" or damage but you can bet they will always seek the maximum as a deterrent.

If this goes through I predict most of our kids will become closet criminals and the current crop of portable video and audio players will become obsolete in Canada. For many kids it's just one more law or restriction to ignore, smoking, drinking, drugs and now video and music. There is one difference though this time, the industry will go after anyone who downloads the software used to break encryption which would also be illegal and the ISP will be forced to cooperate and give out your personal information or they would be held culpable. If little Johnny or Sally does that on their home computer, it's mom and dad who'll get nailed for the $20,000 because the account is in their name and they will be forced to re-mortgage or sell the family home.

If this garbage law goes into effect, I won't take that chance, The hi-speed cable internet service wil be cancelled right away. In talking with some of my friends I'm not alone thinking this way. In my area you can get a cheap nearly unlimited dial-up ($72 yearly) just for simple browsing and no-one else will have internet access in my home because they won't know the number or password.

On artists:
Many just copy other peoples work and camouflage their action with slight variations, effects and settings.
I thought the Beatles were true originators until a recent tv show exposed just how many of their well known songs contain riffs, bars and beats taken from mostly African American artists. One such artist said he just wished he had been given credit when a certain song was released. He could have sued for millions but at the time he was "flattered" that they had used his intro riff. I can't imagine anyone saying that today.

How many times have Shakespeare's plays been usurped and placed in modern settings. How many original ideas have really come along? How many remakes of movies: e.g. (You've Got Mail, In the Good Old Summertime, Shop Around The Corner, She Loves Me, Perfumerie ) same general idea movies just some variations and updates to match the setting and times.

Many years ago Paul Anka went on a popular tv show and explained how he came up with the music for his songs. He played 3 or 4 chords on the piano and asked people what song that was. Everyone yelled out the names of some popular songs (none of his). He then sang part of one of his hits using the same chords with only a slight change in tempo. he did that 3 times and each time sang one of his most popular hits but no one had guessed his songs when they heard the chords. While there are those who produce their own music, I'll bet that a vast majority of the popular songs written by mainstream "artists" are built on the same simple chord structures but then the studio experts take over and develop the version we hear at home. Who really are the artists?

I suppose those points are neither here nor there but it may explain why bands ("artists") sometimes get so little of the profits.

[deadrats]

I don't agree with all the copyright protection being given as political favours, but I also don't agree that everyone but DeadRats should have to pay for the fact that he chose HD DVD instead of BluRay, or was stupid enough to buy a CD full of filler because he liked the single. The world doesn't own you a living. If you buy a CD and then decide it is mostly filled with crap, the record company did not steal from you. You made a bad choice. Live with it.

you are so wrong. the reason choosing HD DVD instead of Blu-Ray turned out to be the wrong choice is because the battle was decided not by the consumers in the marketplace but by big business deciding for the consumers what was best for us, so in fact the choice was taken out of my, and everyone elses hands.

as far as the cd filled with mostly crap, the record company is stealing, it's called a bait and switch, it's a con job, they have committed fraud. if i own a bakery and as an enticement i give away a slice of cake made with only the finest ingredients and carefully baked to make sure it tastes great but the cakes i actually sell i use the cheapest ingredients i can find, i just throw the cake together any way i feel, without washing my hands, knowing full well that you expect the full cake to be just as good as the slice you sampled, then i ripped you off.

if you go test drive a car and the test car is a specially prepared car that handles really well and is super comfortable but the car you are actually sold is a piece of shit, then you have been ripped off.

But the law isn't the major problem here. The problem is a society that has slowly devolved to one where the individual no longer feels that they need to take responsibility for their own actions, and is no longer made accountable. There is always someone or something else to blame and an expectation of restitution for every perceived wrong. And for the most part, these wrongs can be traced back to the stupidity of the individual who now feels aggrieved.

no, the problem with society is that corporations are not held to the same standards of accountability as an individual is.

without getting political, you can see this trend in all aspects of our lives, the recent bailouts are a perfect example: anytime someone mentions "spreading the wealth around" or similar such mantra, the cries of "socialism" are never far behind, yet these same individuals that oppose "spreading the wealth around" have no problem with spreading the consequences around.

this seems to be the big business philosophy: privatize profits but socialize risk; keep government out of big business as long as they are making money but legislate and regulate when they are losing money; tax the little guy that doesn't have a pot to piss in but don't tax the guy with the gazillions because one day maybe, just maybe, a tiny portion of said gazillions might make it into the hands of the poor slob who is penniless.

and lastly, being ripped off doesn't make one stupid, it makes them trusting, which maybe in a cynical way is kind of stupid. but the true stupidity is found in those that allow big business to brainwash them into believing that somehow it's not only ok, but desirable to be ripped off by big business and that these companies are well within their rights to screw their customers.

perhaps the worst of all is that there seems to be a significant portion of the population that has allowed themselves to believe the idiotic mantra that somehow "the market will correct itself" or that "the market will decide for itself how things play out"; pure steamy bullshit. the market, without some intervention, has never corrected itself, left to it's own devices, the market always heads for collapse (the great depression anyone? or any of the numerous recessions) and companies given carte blanch to do what they desire sans consequences invariably end up screwing the little guy (the telecoms, enron, mortgage lenders, the savings and loans, the list is endless).

wake up.

[guns1inger]

Wah wah wah, woe is you. The world hates you and has been designed specifically to make your lowly life miserable. For God's sake man, grow up.

Either that, or put on a tin foil hat and go live in a one room shack in Montana.

You specious arguments are so self-focused that you have completely missed reality. Good luck with your book about the faked moon landings as well.