File Swapping and the Analog Hole

forehead writes "Lawmeme is running an interesting piece on piracy in the digital age. It covers a number of the logical fallacies often cited by the major media companies and certain lawmakers."

Comments

what the hell is the loss?

[Anonymous Coward]

how can you claim a "loss" for pirated materials if the parties in question would nevcer have paid the retail cost for the materials?

This consistently boggles my mind, all these companies saying "piracy costs us $500 mil a year". Listen, some third world family that makes $100 a month isn't going to pay $700 for office, alright?!?

-rt

Re:what the hell is the loss?

[neuroticia]

Arguments for piracy are foolish and merely forward the agenda of those who are seeking to cripple us in ways that are far more important. Forget about your "so called right" to steal or borrow or copy music or programs in any form. It's irrelevant. It's already been determined that what you are doing is illegal. Get over it.

The important thing, and the thing that is in danger is our right to fair use, and our right to innovate and push the technology we have at our fingertips. The right to use CDs to back up our files, and the right to duplicate files that rightfully belong to us. The right to have POWERFUL hardware and software that is fully functional without limitations. And the right to determine how/for what purpose this hardware is used for.

Stop saying "I defend my right to shoot my neighbor because if I didn't have a gun I'd stab him" and start saying "I defend my right to bear firearms." You do not need to push home the point that technology is being used in illegal ways. You need to push home that certain bits of proposed legislation is going to HARM THE RIGHTS THAT WE HAVE.

Stop letting the REAL issues get so clouded by this tirade about capitalist pigs. We aren't going to change the world for the better this way, but maybe we can at least focus our arguments and keep the rights we have.

-Sara

Re:what the hell is the loss?

[Nightlight3]

The piracy is a merely another decoy, the same as child pornography, indecency, violence, recipes for explosives, spying, selling drugs, doubting certain parts of the official history,... etc. The underlying objective behind all those moves is to regain the control over the information that the 'masses' may receive. They had it tied up so nicely with TV, movie and major print media all in the few hands. Then internet came and ruined it all. They've been itching to clamp it down by any excuse they can sell. Each pretext du jour they're pushing slices the opposition differently. Eventually, these fragments of the opposition will become so small and misaligned in their particular purposes, that they can be brought again under control.

Re:what the hell is the loss?

[MoneyT]

Regarding religions: Religions really only work at the local and individual basis. Any time religion starts to become a massive movement centered arround a single living leader, problems arise. Not nessesarily war, but usualy it does end in blood shed of some type (i.e. crusades, Hitler, Bin Laden, centuries of holy wars). More people have died in the name of God than for any other cause. There's something about this that doesn't fit right with me.

Re:what the hell is the loss?

[MoneyT]

The other thing that often get's overlooked is that most people given the opportunity, will follow the law if it is easy to do so. Case in point, jay walking. Technicaly it is against the law, yet I'll bet all of us have done it. Yet when we come to a street corner, we don't go out of our way to walk across outside of the cross walk and against the light because following the law is more convenient in this instance.

So the same would apply to file-sharing and music theft. People would be less inclined to steal music if purchasing the real music was more convenient and more desireable. If I could buy a CD knowing exactly what was on the CD, and at a price which the CD was worth (not $16+ for a 9 song manufactured pop CD) I would be far more inclined to purchase the CD than to download the songs. Partly because it is more convienient to get a guarenteed quality original recording.

But when one CD costs me 3 hours of work (at minimum wage, for us "middle class teens") it's easier to spend an hour looking for a good quality rip. Every law is followed simply because it is convenient and desireable as compared to the alternative. The same applies to music sharing and boot legging.

mpaa.com vs mpaa.org

[dattaway]

mpaa.com that is link to in the header seems to be a legitimate business, but mpaa.org is the cartel we seem to be concerned with.

So much for the internic's rule of .com and .org domain rules where .org's are supposed to be "non-profit!"

Anybody else notice....

[Fenris2001]

....that the link above points to Management Partners and Associates and not The Motion Picture Association of America

The real "digital" threat

[00_NOP]

The article says:

One of the most prominent and recurrent arguments of the copyright interests is that "digital piracy" is far worse than "analog piracy" and thus justifies the imposition of draconian paracopyright laws, such as the DMCA and CBDTPA. I refer to this argument as the "analog fallacy." The fallacy is that analog piracy is not nearly as threatening as digital piracy because analog copies degrade with every generation while digital copies remain pristine no matter how many copies are made. While true in a strict sense, the fallacy is that most of the assumptions necessary for this argument to be true are not realistic.

But surely the real 'threat' of digital media is actually the close-to-zero marginal cost of copying the original.

With a VCR each copy is a real, physical, medium. With digital everything is, well, virtual.

There are different responses to this - in software, free software is a response. Free software advocates accept that digital 'objects' can and will be copied, so build that in.

I'm not convinced that model works for music and movies though.

Free software is built on a pre-existing cultural norm - ie hacking - that doesn't exist for these other media.

Furthermore, no government contracts (the States), or direct support (elsewhere) is available to create the movie-making equivalent of MIT's AI lab.

Re:The real "digital" threat

[cadallin451]

"Free software is built on a pre-existing cultural norm - ie hacking - that doesn't exist for these other media."

I would argue with this point. In what way do hackers differ from other people who make art on an amateur level? There are people who write, produce music, and produce visual arts non-commercially, and some of this material is damn good, such as Penny Arcade, PvP, or Megatokyo. This is true for all media forms and goes back to a central flaw in the media industry's argument.

They would like us to believe that without commercial distribution i.e them, media would not exist, but this is simply false. Money is not the sole reason people create art, they do so because they enjoy it. They whole idea copyright and IP in US is based around the idea that "Hmm, It would be nice if people who create art could charge for it, allowing them to more easily support themselves and create more." This initial idea was valid and good, but it has now been carried over to the extreme. The media industry now is essentially rabidly trying to destroy non-commercial media, as a threat to their profits.

The attitudes the RIAA shows towards independent labels and bands are really the opinions the media industry has about all amateurs, if we start amusing ourselves, we won't need them. This is why content creating is in danger from SSCA/CBDTPA. They want us to be locked into them with no other choice.

Re:The real "digital" threat

[Dr. Awktagon]

But surely the real 'threat' of digital media is actually the close-to-zero marginal cost of copying the original.

With a VCR each copy is a real, physical, medium. With digital everything is, well, virtual.

Yeah, but if you have an analog copy, you make it into a digital copy, and the game's over. And there's always someone who will be able to get a higher-quality "rip" then you did, somewhere, someplace. That's why this is all such a futile waste of effort on their part.

Unless the {RI,MP}AA manages to outlaw ALL computers and recording devices and criminalize ALL recording not performed by them, an analog->digital rip will always be possible and the content will be available. The world is digital and we can't turn back the wheels of Progress. (In fact we should Promote it!)

I'm not convinced that model works for music and movies though.

The basic model they have now seems to be working just fine.. how much did Spiderman make?? All they need to do is lower their expectations of gross margins to the levels of most every other established industry.

Re:The real "digital" threat

[ninewands]

Quoth the poster ---

<QUOTE>
The media industry now is essentially rabidly trying to destroy non-commercial media, as a threat to their profits.

The attitudes the RIAA shows towards independent labels and bands are really the opinions the media industry has about all amateurs, if we start amusing ourselves, we won't need them. This is why content creating is in danger from SSCA/CBDTPA. They want us to be locked into them with no other choice.
</QUOTE>

After all the ranting I have seen on /., somebody has FINALLY stated that which SHOULD have been obvious. The whole SSSCA/CBDTPA uproar in Washington has LITTLE, if anything, to do about you and me downloading "mp3z" or "|\/|0\/i3z" over the internet. It's all about the fact that the means of content production and distribution have gotten inexpensive enough that the CREATORS of the content are no longer beholden to the publishers of content.

The "pirates" that scare the bejesus out of the MPAA and the RIAA aren't the "CD-rippers". They are the indie artists who can afford to purchase mixers, etc. and record and digitally encode their own music and distribute it LEGITIMATELY over the 'net without Sony, Time-Warner, MCA, Disney and the rest of the "usual gang of suspects" getting THEIR cut.

It's not about copying, it's about CONTROL. It's about the survival of an outmoded business model that has left many of the original artists of rock dependent on charity in their old age. It's all about preserving the KNOWN historical rip-off (of the artists by the labels) by preventing a future speculative one.

It's all about the fact that digital camcorders and digital audio recording is on the verge of making the studios and labels and their 18 layers of middlemen and IP lawyers as obsolete and dead as the dinosaurs.

Re:Digital is different.

[Warin]

You create a perfect copy, yes. But a perfect copy of what?

The vast majority of digital files traded over the net with ease are sub par. Have you ever watched any of the bootlegs out there? I dont think I have ever seen one that matches even 3rd generation VHS copy quality. Especially in the case of video, making something small enough to be easily swapped also means making it of such a low quality that only the cheapest of person would use that as an option to seeing the film in a theater, or renting it on VHS/DVD

Don't buy into the strawman being put up by the MPAA! They are looking for ways to screw us all for even more of our money...and it's time that the public says 'enough'

Re:Digital is different.

[Indras]

Yes, but the point of this article is to detour people from this way of thinking. The fact is, while digital copies may make things easier, it's no more or less illegal than analog copies, which is what the writer calls the "analog myth." I can remember getting most of my home music by borrowing other people's cassette tapes (audio, not VHS) and copying them. A friend of mine had two VCR's, and every night he would rent a few movies and make copies, and sell them for a few bucks to friends (just enough to get more blank tapes, no profit involved).

The fact is, digital pirating is likely just as difficult, just as widespread, and just as damaging as analog pirating. Actually, many cam rips (when someone sits in a theater with a camera and records the whole movie) are analog to begin with, then later converted to a digital format, and additionally put through some lossy compression schemes to bring it down below 700Mb to be put up on servers.

"It's much more of a danger to the Music Industry, and they have a right to protect themselves."

Actually, this article is about the Movie Industry, not music, I see you didn't take time to read it. And yes, they have the right to protect themselves, but suing KaZaA, Morpheus, iMesh, Napster, and so on for allowing this to take place is like suing UPS for allowing people to send drugs illegally through the mail. The fact is, they SHOULDN'T know what's inside the files that are being swapped, just as much as UPS shouldn't know what's inside a package they deliver.

And, forcing companies to create hardware that won't allow you to make illegal copies is stupid, too. That's like making Xerox put something in their copiers that won't allow people to make photocopies of of pages out of copyrighted books without permission (which is illegal, too). How does a DVD player know that the DVD you're playing in it is being copied to another DVD, and how does the DVD burner (in the case of copying DVD's) tell that the incoming signal is copyrighted material, not the owner's home movie of his son building a sandcastle?

The fact is, if something is being done illegally, the MPAA needs to go for the people who are committing a crime using these devices, not the people who make the devices.

Re:Digital is different.

[Com2Kid]

In digital, you can create perfect copies and send them out to everyone you know... at the click of a button.

With analog, you actually have to work at it. You'd have to tape the tape (lossy), make copies (lossy), and give it to friends/fellow pirates manually.

Computers make things much easier for pirates. That's why there's so much focus on swapping music digitally. It's much more of a danger to the Music Industry, and they have a right to protect themselves.

Uh huh.

BULLSHIT

It is A LOT easier to make an analog rip (put tape in machine, hit record) then it is to do a digital rip.

First off there isn't any "Big Red Button" solution to doing movie rips that are of a high enough quality that ANY self respecting movie pirate would use.

Doing even a DECENT digital rip requires extensive knowledge of a large variety of programs and a good deal of work, not to mention the patience to wait while your video sits there and encodes at .1 FPS or so on a 1Ghz+ machine.

Now if you want to do a GOOD rip (a GOOD digital rip will look better then the original DVD, many rippers take pride in that they can correct errors made in the original DVDs mastering) then you had better know a ton about mathematics, some basic data theory, a good deal of color theory, have an intuitive understanding of at least some parts of matrix mathematics, and know how to combine it all of those skills together to create one nice highly polished product.

This is not even going into how you are using primitive tools that range from being everything from crash prone to inducing video or audio errors into your stream if you push the wrong button or select the wrong option. (not that that option should induce errors, but. . . . Betas are betas and all, and the programs you are using likely will never be out of beta stage).

Yah sure now the couriers may have a somewhat easy job (though it does depend on how you are transferring the files) but hell;

don't say that making a digital rip it easy, because it is not.

(of course good Analog copiers have to go through similarly difficult troubles, just hitting record on a VCR doesn't cut it if you want quality goods.)

Hindering independent filmmakers

[captaineo]

This article, which I though was generally excellent, unfortunately stops short of naming the MPAA's true goal - continuing its monopoly on the production of blockbuster movies by ensuring that no high-quality filmmaking equipment falls into the hands of non-studio filmmakers.

Back in the pre-digital days it was easy for a determined independent artist to throw together some analog video equipment (eg consumer VHS decks, camcorders, and mixers) and make a film. The only thing you couldn't easily do is distribute the result to a wide audience...

Now, thanks to the internet, anyone who can compress some videos and set up a web server can theoretically distribute films.

*BUT* look at where the technology is going... There is no cheap digital recording and distribution system that is accessible to independent artists. (yeah, DV is fairly cheap - except for editing decks - but you can't *distribute* on DV). You can buy DVD burners for a few hundred dollars now, but consumer-level burners do not let you "author" a properly-formatted, CSS-scrambled DVD like the megadollar Hollywood systems can. And there is certainly no low-cost high-definition format on the horizon - HDCAM is insanely expensive, and HD DVD will be read-only. Broadcast digital video systems use obfuscated encryption methods and will only be accessible to studio productions.

It's in Hollywood's best interest to keep recording and distribution technologies out of the hands of independent artists. Using the cry of "piracy!" as a distraction, they are trying to pass laws that will basically make it illegal to use high-quality video equipment outside of the studio system. This way the MPAA companies will maintain their control over what films get made, resulting in fewer choices and higher prices (the inevitable consequences of a successful monopoly).

Incidentally, in my own production work I've already been hindered by the media industry's efforts. On two occasions I've had to perform a digital->analog->digital dub to record copy-protected music, *the rights for which I had legally paid for*... Also, I've been forced to reverse-engineer a high-definition video transmission format, because no such equipment is available to those without a studio-level budget.

Re:Hindering independent filmmakers

[Alan Partridge]

that's the stupidest comment I've ever read. In EVERY way it's now FAR easier to shoot and distribute your own productions and with INFINTELY better quality tha was possible 10 years ago. Editing decks? You don't edit with DECKS these days. HDCAM? Apointless format if ever there was one, and a great many commercial producers neither can or want to afford it. You are an absolute fool - if you were that interested in making TV you'd get a job in... TV!

Effect of Piracy

[chill]

Just to point out, as the article details, a DIGITAL bootleg of Spiderman was out on the Net the day before it hit the theater. The result? The theatrical release STILL was the largest grossing opening day (and weekend) ever. Its second weekend was the largest second weekend for a movie ever. Its third weekend (this weekend) is sitting at $46 million which is, surprise, the largest third weekend ever.

Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones.

Ditto. Movie out in digital piracy a week before opening, and it still makes obscene amounts of money ($86 million this weekend and $110+ million so far).

Wanna check on the sales of Star Wars I: Phantom Menace when released on VHS/DVD? One of the best sellers; ditto for The Matrix -- both of which were floating the web in DivX format before they hit the theaters, much less DVD/VHS.

The last 4 years (1998-2001) are the best on record for revenue generated and attendence at theaters. DVD/VHS sales are thru the roof.

In the "perfect" world, where movies are uncopiable and you have to see it at the theater and/or purchase a legitimate copy, the industry would see only a paltry rise in revenue compared to today -- not the $3 Billion touted by Mr. Valenti.

Most people who get rips would either do without altogether, or wait until the DVD/VHS that THEY WERE GOING TO PURCHASE ANYWAY became available.

Because that would be "linking"...

[mkcmkc]

...which the courts have ruled (in the 2600 case) is illegal. :-P

Mike

Heh heh.

[DarkZero]

I think the funniest part of this whole "losses from piracy" thing is that newspapers around the country run a story about piracy whenever a big movie is bootlegged before its release and then go on to mention the "threat" that these bootlegs pose to the box office revenues of the movie... but they never do follow-ups saying, "Oh, I guess not" whenever that massively marketed movie breaks a dozen box office records in a single day.

Gee, could these big corporate newspapers be writing in the favor of their even bigger corporate owners? ;)

Re:The real cost of swapping movies

[Disevidence]

No it isn't, its just that Telstra (my broadband carrier) sucks ass.

You see, in Australia, there are two companies that give cable. Telstra and Optus. Telstra is a 51% owned government company, and while it may have good telephone service, its cable service is expensive, gets knocked out with regularity, and it has special software that doesn't run on Linux. Optus is waaay better, especially since there is an option for the cap to be X times what the average user uses. Excellent stuff.

(For all Telstra Broadband Cable users, use BPA Login, a linux friendly, easier and more extensive configuration client)

Back to the point. I certainly wouldn't waste my time downloading a crappy movie (on my 15'), one which i can see with more enjoyment in front of a nice big tv, with good sound and clear picture.

Besides, I would find it strange sitting with a bunch of friends watching a movie on the PC, or for the few with GF's, how the hell are you mean to curl up with her if your infront of a computer???

Yet these MPAA and RIAA just want to keep enforcing more "protection", make us jump through more hoops, and do not give people the benefit of choice. I make sure i buy all my cd's, DVD second hand etc, and you should too. Its cheaper, anyway.

DVD is an excellent idea for storage and lots of files on the one medium, but due to the MPAA and RIAA's selfishness and oversight, and the corrupt american system (I am not american, Im an Aussie, but we stupidly adopt most american things about 6 months after),the high-tech, convienent uses for DVD is going down the drain.

If that law goes through (and then, undoubtedly, come here), its illegal for me to download Mandrake and burn it onto CD so I can do a install, and have the CD's there for booting or use on other computers. Quite frankly, its gh3y. So much for the tech revolution. More like the tech devolution.

Resistance to change

[theolein]

Even if one were to agree that internet piracy is decreasing the revenue of the RIAA and MPAA, even if Microsoft (yes, they are doing a similar scheme with their new licences) were actually right about the dangers (to microsoft) of OSS, in my opinion it boils down to a simple problem: Resitance to change.

Why are they resisting the change? Because of revenue. All the above organisation's profits are dropping for various reasons and they are trying to stem the loss with either restrictive laws or restrictive licences. As I posted in another topic, this only changes the response to the laws and licences, but does not stop the actual process itself. Trying to exert control, by American companies, of personal devices and media, in an effort to stop the growing digitalisation of society will only result in even more resistance by consumers and the general move of innovation away from the US and bitter infighting amongst the industry. Trying to outlaw devices such as the general purpose PC, will drive parts of an entire industry, into insolvency (Software and tool developers above all) and will make the US an unpopular place to do business in and shift the impetus of media away from there.

I'm not sure but I think that whichever way they go, they will have to face restructuring in the long term and this means losses. There are so many examples that one could fill pages with them- The steel industry trying to stop change with protectionism (only resulting in retaliation from overseas traders), The car industry trying to stop unionisation with violence and anti-communist propaganda (didn't win there either), the English monarchy trying to stop the US from gaining independance, AT&T trying to hold onto it's monopoly in the communication business. - In the long run it mostly backfires. Musicians who earn next to nothing from the RIAA can and will use these restricive laws to further their own poularity by speaking out against it. Companies moving to OSS because it's cheaper and less controlled. Developers not making products for sale or use in the US due to the restrictions there.

I think, in the long run, laws such as these, are immensly damaging to the very organisations trying to enforce them now, because your average person, who doesn't pirate, will get ticked off that he has to pay more for a DVD or CD (or did you think that they were going to implement all these copy restrictions for free?), the same guy will get ticked off that he has no access to independant media, that everything he does on his non-general purpose computing device is watched and controlled by someone. Programmers in the US will be the laughing stock of the world if they can only code within a strictly defined set of parameters that entails very little freedom.

I'm not a fan of Science Fiction analogies but "Flow my tears the policeman said" by Philip K Dick is good reading for the case that these restrictions become law.(Especially the epilog)

Not complete without a mention of my Congressman

[browser_war_pow]

No debate about the DMCA is complete without discussing my Congressman, Bob Goodlatte of the 6th District, VA. He is a fantatical support of the DMCA and has called me a thief and a supporter of theft in public because I stated my opposition to it. He is on his 6th term IIRC and he has currently no true competition worth even mentioning. The Democrats probably ran a guy against him last time in the hopes that they could raise some quick cash because right now he is totally unopposed with no hope in sight. That is bad, it means we have in the house a nearly institutional barrier that dearly loves the DMCA.

He comes from a generally right wing district (though one that is generally quite secular, the most religious person I've met in my area supports marijuana legalization for example!) and not even the LP will try to steal his seat. He has the luxury of having a district that is not dependent on government subsidies and doesn't have a large techie population therefore he can propose stuff like the DMCA and NETA safely (he is directly responsible for the latter and claims to have been heavily involved in the house version of the former).

People like Goodlatte are proof that we cannot rely on either party, we need a multiparty system where at least half the parties have clear cut political philosophies like the LP and Green Party. The LP IIRC is staunchly opposed to the DMCA and all legislation like it. It is the third largest party and that is a constant. The Green Party doesn't have even half the number of people in pubic office that the LP does. The LP is admittedly not very large, but it doesn't need a "celebrity" like Nader to get politically active people to remember that it even exists. In the last election, I could vote for the LP for governor, lt. governor and IIRC attorney general. The same could not be said about the Green Party. We need a party that has a shot of winning and we need to support it whenever possible.

Re:Digital is different.

[man_ls]

Bootleg is a relatively ambigious term here.

There are several levels of quality in the underground world:

Cam. Handheld cam for video, audio from cam's mic. Level of insiderness required: None.

TS (Telesync). Handheld cam for video, but the audio is picked up from a "remote source", frequently a lineout in the projection room. Level of insiderness required: Small. You have to work at a theater, but don't have to be important.

Screener. Ripped pre-release copy of the movie, either from a "for-review" copy of the film reels, a preproduction disk, or from the a/v outs of a projector. Quality is usually just below DVD-quality. Level of insiderness required: High.

DVD-Rip. Decoded from a DVD, obviously. Great quality. Level of insiderness required: None. But it takes time for the movie to come out on DVD.

I've seen a bootleg Lord of the Rings that's a screener. DVD-quality audio and video, with an MPAA copyirght warning scrolling randomly down the bottom of the screen about every 20 minutes. It's great.

I've also seen Resident Evil on a Telesync. Crappy quality, sound wasn't bad though. Glitchy, artifacated video stream. Sucked, but it was okay for re-watching after I saw the movie in the theater.

A bootleg's quality is directly proportional to the time spent creating it.

Re:Who are the dinosaurs--the computer industry

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

I believe I speek for everyone when I say: shut up and get off your damn soapbox. The computer industry has increased computing power by a factor of two almost every year. Windows XP, Mac OS X, Linux, and other modern operating systems have made system crashes extremely rare. IRQs are no longer a problem thanks to things like USB and IEEE 1394. There are plenty of computer resellers: Dell, HP (Pavilions are #1 in retail), Gateway, eMachines, and many other smaller companies manufacture and sell computers. PCs are more compatible than ever. I have different products from different companies with an OS that was developed 2 years after the computer was made and a printer that is six years old and and two hard drives from different manufacturers at different rotational speeds with software from at least twenty different companies as well as software which I have developed as well as an internet connection that runs over a cable line that lets my computer talk to computers running different hardware, different operating systems, and different software. And guess what? Everything works just fine.

So what does all of this have to do with the price of eggs?

The computer industry has produced faster, better machines at lower prices every year. Software has become easier to use and more reliable every year. A single network with most of the computers on the planet has emerged. Through open standards, computers of all types can communicate with each other. Hardware and software works on whatever type of system you have. Retailers and manufacturers, large and small, have been putting together standardized, low-cost components to make computers.

On the other hand, the motion picture industry has been giving us mostly rehashes of tired old stories (with a few exceptions), usually filmed and distribued to theathers on 50+ year old technology.

So who's the dinosaur?

They Don't Care

[bullocha]

The whole $$$ lost due to piracy is just a fabrication... Here is my crazy theory:

The record companies don't care about me, you and john down the street downloading songs off of Napster/AudioGalaxy/Kazza/Whatever. The songs we download and don't pay for only make up the smallest percentage of the companies revenues. Even then, most of us (well I know I do) still go out and buy the damn CD. I believe what the record companies are really scared of is losing THE ARTISTS.

Here in Australia, if an artist is signed to a record company, and they produce a top album, for all their hard work they receive less than $2 per copy sold. Each CD retails for $30+ each. Of this $30, the record company, the distributor, the retailer and even worse, the government take their share. This leaves the artists with very little. In this brave new world, the artists will not need any of these people. They will be able to go into a studio, hand over their $$, record an album and distribute it online, all without the need of some giant company threatening them with contracts, intelectual property etc. Even if they sold online copies for $5 each, and every second person gave it to a mate for free, they still make more money than they did under the record company reign of terror.

The record companies have realised this, but they can't go to the press and tell the public 'Stop Napster, cause it will send us broke, and you will be able to buy albums for $5 each'. The public wouldn't care less for their plight. So, they make up these figures on how much it is costing them, and how piracy is the reason you pay so much for music.

This, I see the same with the large movie distributors like Fox. They aren't concerned with us pirating Star Wars or Spiderman.. We will all still want to go see it in the cinema with the sound, the screen and the atmosphere. They just use this excuse to cover the fact that soon, people will be able to make and distribute movies without them.

What can I say? I love a good theory.

A/./

Enough lawyering

[serutan]

This article, while furnishing some interesting info about the numbers, was a sickeningly typical lawyer nitpick. Instead of attacking verbiage with better verbiage, I wish these legal geniuses would address the real issue, which is whether or not copyright enforcement benefits the general public to an extent that justifies taking away other things.

America has always been big on law enforcement, but there have traditionally been limits, like search and seizure laws and rules of evidence. The rights-ownership industry (we're not talking about creative artists here) appears to think that protecting IP should become the central goal of law in America. Privacy doesn't matter -- it could be used to hide infringement. Innovation doesn't matter -- it could be used to defeat protection. Opensource doesn't matter -- it's an evil socialist plot anyway. Everybody's behavior must be restricted so as to guarantee that people like Jamie "skipping commercials is theft" Kellner get a nickel every time anybody reads, views or hears anything other than their own bodily functions.

We ought to do follow the advice put forth in some recent article posted here (can't remember the freakin one) that advocated focusing political contributions to defeat legislators who act as toadies to the entertainment industry. Every time a new tendril appears, cut it off. Blacklist the entertainment industry and see how they like it. Does anybody know who Hollings' opponent is going to be in the next election? Send him or her money. Send letters to every other senator notifying them that you are doing this and why you are doing it.

American politics tends to be a series of one-issue campaigns. Our lawmakers understand that principle very well. Make the defeat of the copyright industry your one issue and let them know it.