Hollywood steps up piracy fight

[BobK]

I'll try, but every time I try to use the quote function it ends up looking like... well, I'll use it and let you see what it looks like (unless it works this time- that has happened once, or maybe twice).

[edit] Okay- I tried and it looks like it usually does. When I first got here I tried everything including asking several times how to make it work. I followed suggestions and it still didn't work. I gave up, but if you have a new idea I haven't tried I'll try it.

[BJ_M]

i fixed it for you -- but when you post ,

Disable BBCode in this post

should be unchecked ..

you can do this in your profile so you dont need to do it everytime ..

[fritzi93]

It appears some people are at cross-purposes on this. Perhaps the question should be separated into two issues. Adam has certainly made his point, namely: Copyright holders are entitled to legal remedies for violations of copyright. Specifically, MPAA/RIAA are justified in suing file-sharers who violate copyright, under current law. (Forgive me if that wasn't phrased perfectly).

Okay, it's legal. The other question is: Is it a good strategy? I think not.

Adam says it's for deterrence, and is working to a degree. Fair enough. But I wonder if the the MPAA/RIAA have not underestimated the downside to this:

1) Alienation of actual/potential customers. No elaboration necessary.

2) The MPAA/RIAA seem to believe this is a zero-sum game. That is, any increase in "consumption" that does not yield them immediate return constitutes monetary damages. This, I believe, is what Gurm and Evilwizardglick are getting at. So, are people who download crummy DivX/XviD movies or lousy MP3s costing the MPAA/RIAA money?

As stated already, one can view much of this as "sampling" or even "free advertising" that stimulates sales they would not otherwise get. And some of it is essentially irrelevant, since there would be no sale in any case. Without P2P, the freeloader would NOT buy regardless, probably many of them haven't the money anyway. Some UNKNOWN proportion of P2P sharing no doubt DOES injure the MPAA/RIAA economically.

All the data they have so far presented seems to me to have serious flaws and questionable assumptions. It's just a suspicion, but I'll bet it's actually an instance where everything pretty much cancels out. At worst, their "losses" are far smaller than they claim.

3) Instead of focusing efforts on deriving benefit from new technology, they're standing in the way yelling STOP. Not very friggin' likely, they'd do better to get out in front of this.

4) And all the other negative factors I've forgotten. This subject is always so tiresome. [yawn]

JMHO

[MrMoody]

So what it really boils down to, is CD-R burners are not digital audio recording devices because the manufacturers don't pay royalties on them and include protection schemes. Oh... kay...

The last part of 1008 does grant consumers the right to make non-commercial copies of audio cds.

But not with a computer or other unlicensed device.

[adam]

So what it really boils down to, is CD-R burners are not digital audio recording devices because the manufacturers don't pay royalties on them and include protection schemes. Oh... kay...

But not with a computer or other unlicensed device. :evil

No. CD-r burners ARE audio recording devices and their manufacturers DO pay royalties and consumers CAN make permissible non-commerical copies of audio cds with them. But since the pc itself if not primarily used, and marketed for, copying audio....you cannot download audio off the internet and claim its a permissible audio recording under this statute. Basically, downloading copyrighted music is still illegal.

[adam]

You know the cool thing Bobk, if you take all my quotes in your post and rearrange them, they actually answer everyone of the questions you raise in your post. I've never seen that happen before.

[BobK]

test

[edit]

BJ_M

I checked my profile and it says BBCode is OFF (I don't see how to change it either way).

So I posted this test (above)- 'Disable BBCode' in this post was checked but under 'Options' it still said that 'BBC Code is On'.

Obviously I'm missing something.

I turned it off for you and it works. Look under Options just below your post. Disable BBCode was checked when I edited this. It should be left unchecked. But in the future, please make test posts in the test forum. adam

[adam]

It appears some people are at cross-purposes on this. Perhaps the question should be separated into two issues. Adam has certainly made his point, namely: Copyright holders are entitled to legal remedies for violations of copyright. Specifically, MPAA/RIAA are justified in suing file-sharers who violate copyright, under current law. (Forgive me if that wasn't phrased perfectly).

That's exactly what I'm saying. Thanks. Somehow your paragraphs come out smaller than mine.

Okay, it's legal. The other question is: Is it a good strategy? I think not.

I don't think its a good strategy either.

Adam says it's for deterrence, and is working to a degree. Fair enough. But I wonder if the the MPAA/RIAA have not underestimated the downside to this:

I'm sure they haven't. Like I said, they made the conscious choice to commit public relations suicide in order to keep making the money they were used to.

I think the misunderstanding is that people in this thread are accusing me of supporting this tactic, simply because I can recognize what they are trying to accomplish, and have seen the initial bad effects of their effort. For me to say that it is working, or will work to a degree over time, is not my seal of approval. Lots of stuff works that I can't stand...like speed limits.

[BobK]

You know the cool thing Bobk, if you take all my quotes in your post and rearrange them, they actually answer everyone of the questions you raise in your post. I've never seen that happen before.

Maybe it's just me, but some of the answers are too well hidden to find. A couple were:

Prohibition was a very similar law (similarily enforced). What makes it more flawed than most drug laws?

What's the logical reason to prohibit marijuana or cocaine?

If you have reasons for keeping drugs illegal that don't apply to alcohol, what are they?

If they make masturbation illegal- so you think they should have the right to stop you from doing it (assuming that you do- I'm not making any claims here)?

Do you think farting should be illegal? (Or translate to "do you think your right to privacy should be overridden by law enforcement just because they're trying to enforce a law?)

[fritzi93]

That's exactly what I'm saying. Thanks.

You're welcome.

Mind you, I ain't gunna start sucking up to the MODS now. I've managed to give most of them a tweak now and then, although you and Baldrick have given me no opportunity. Yet.

Oh, yeah, Lord Smurf is a MOD now too.

[losferwords]

One of the main issues i see is tyhe fact that we still have region coding and varying region releases. If they actually thought about it, they shouldn't have DVD's out in the states (region 1) when the bloody film version is still in the pictures in the UK. 2 examples i can think of recently, Man on Fire and The Manchurian Candidate. Both were in the pictures here in the UK and the DVD was available (for me to buy legally) on a region 1 release. I know it is (very slightly) off topic a bit, but if they want to Discurage piracy wholesale they need to get their act together. A quick search on one of the tracker sites, and you can find the links to the "real" movies rather than the CAM versions which everyone gets subjected to in their local car boot sale.

[adam]

Prohibition was a very similar law (similarily enforced). What makes it more flawed than most drug laws?

What's the logical reason to prohibit marijuana or cocaine?

If you have reasons for keeping drugs illegal that don't apply to alcohol, what are they?

If they make masturbation illegal- so you think they should have the right to stop you from doing it (assuming that you do- I'm not making any claims here)?

Do you think farting should be illegal? (Or translate to "do you think your right to privacy should be overridden by law enforcement just because they're trying to enforce a law?)

You are asking me to commit to one of two positions. Either I say that all drugs should be made illegal, since there's just no way to distinquish between alcohol and something you inject into your veins that can kill you immediately, and that we should also criminalize farting and masturbation....or I say that we should just throw all our laws out the window, allow all drug use and fart and jerk off to our heart's content.

Since you did not take my earlier hint I will be more specific this time. Your posts are freakin' crazy and quite frankly scare me a little bit. Your contentions are so completely far removed from this thread or anything that I have posted in it that I see no reason that I should have to explain why I think heroine should be illegal but farting permissible.

[BobK]

Not exactly. Basically I was asking you why you think prohibition was a flawed law and none of the drug laws are.

since there's just no way to distinquish between alcohol and something you inject into your veins that can kill you immediately

That might be a valid argument if heroin was the only illegal drug.

or I say that we should just throw all our laws out the window

Nope- didn't say have to commit to just throwing all laws out the window. There are many laws that have perfectly good reasons for existing.

Since you did not take my earlier hint I will be more specific this time. Your posts are freakin' crazy and quite frankly scare me a little bit.

Sorry if my tendancy to look for actual answers to questions scares you. Despite the large number of answers you have given I still haven't seen any that actually answer what I asked. "Inject in your veins and kill you instantly" works for drugs that are typically injected in your veins and can kill you instantly. (It'll work if you want prohibition of laundry bleach too).

Personally I don't use drugs and never did. I spent 25 years in the army and drug use would have caused an instant end my career as a pilot. I worked with people who spent time in Colombia supporting the US/Colombia war on drugs, and I worked with DEA in the US a couple times myself. Possibly irrevelant, but my father and grandfather were both cops. My sister was a cop for a few years. One of my brother-in-laws was a cop for 5 years. Another brother-in-law is a bail enforcement agent (also known as a bounty hunter). And my youngest brother is a sherrif's deputy. So I'm no expert, but I suspect that I have a better idea than many people who's actually winning the war.

I see no reason that I should have to explain why I think heroine should be illegal but farting permissible.

You don't have to explain why you think either one. It's become apparent that you either can't or won't explain. But offering opinions such as (to paraphrase) 'we're winning the war on drugs' or 'prohibition a flawed but drug laws aren't' and being unable or unwilling to explain why tends you make look either very uninformed or unthinking.

And your instance on concentrating on heroin while ignoring my references to less dangerous drugs makes you sound a little like me.

[adam]

One of the main issues i see is tyhe fact that we still have region coding and varying region releases. If they actually thought about it, they shouldn't have DVD's out in the states (region 1) when the bloody film version is still in the pictures in the UK. 2 examples i can think of recently,

I think global releases would make a huge impact on pirating. Some regions can wait months before getting their version. Its like waiving a carrot in front of them.

But I wonder how practical it would be to expect a global release date for a product which varies so much from one region to the next. The DVDs are physically different due to regional format variations and each region often has its own distributor so you've got lots of separate entities all putting out similar...but different products. I'd think it'd be tough to coordinate all that. Other industries often have staggered releases too, ie: books, cars, etc... I think it may just be a fact of life.

[losferwords]

But they have managed it in the past, look at LOTR. What is the point of region coding these days anyway? I am able with a few button presses on my remote to make my player region free/region specific and watch a disc from anywhere in the world. My TV plays NTSC even though I am in a PAL region.
Piracy will be more rampant when the disc is available somewhere else before it is where you live and you don't want to wait until it comes out in your region (if you cannot buy online), this is and always will be human nature, "I gotta have it".

[Capmaster]

But they have managed it in the past, look at LOTR. What is the point of region coding these days anyway? I am able with a few button presses on my remote to make my player region free/region specific and watch a disc from anywhere in the world.

How many average Walmart DVD purchasers, for example, do you suppose know how to firmware-hack their player to make it region-free? 1%? 3%? The average Joe Lunchpail doesn't even know what firmware is

[adam]

Yes region coding is like CSS protection. Even though it is incredibly easy to bypass, it is still highly effective simply because the average person doesn't know how to bypass it much less program their VCR.

Also, while PAL equipment has absolutely no problem playing NTSC, the opposite definitely isn't true. Unless you have a DVD player that can convert to NTSC, PAL DVDs won't work unless you like the old timey feel of black and white picture.

[BobK]

What is the point of region coding these days anyway?

The same as the point of locking your door at night. A typical lock isn't going to even slow down a competent burglar, but it will deter a lot of people.