Slashdot Mirror
Lofgren Introduces BALANCE Act to Modify DMCA
Infonaut writes "Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D - CA) introduced H.R. 1066, The Balance Act. It seeks to clarify 'that America's historic principles of fair use - protected under Section 107 of the Copyright Act - apply to analog and digital transmissions.' Apparently Lessig is on board, as are several associations and other organizations. If you like what you see, encourage your representative to support the bill."
Lofgren introduced the Digital Choice & Freedom Act last term. What ever happened to it? This seems like basically the same thing/
Is Congress actually stepping *out* of the stone age??
All I ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
Attorney for Duff: "That party-hardy attitude is a registered copyright of the Duff Brewing Corportation."
Duffman: "What ever happened to fair use?"
it's about time someone realizes that just becase it's made of 1's and 0's it's still just a recording, and protected under fair use.
if they keep this up, I'll have to transfer all my mp3's and ogg's over to tape.
THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
A list of US House Representatives
(remember it is always best to write snail mail to your reps. Email is trashed to easy.
http://www.house.gov or here Write your Rep
And here are the Senators
Senate Listings
clearly a clued up congressional representative. See also her remarks on p2p here
" Illegal file-sharing is a major problem. But we should not create one problem to solve another."
She'd get my vote...
we'll, if I had one over there...
-he who laughs last, is a bit slow.
journal
Terrorist invaders crossing the pond to attack us! Help, help, we're being oppressed!
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Imagine what would happen if "all rights" could actually be "reserved" on something like this:
h tm l
Rowley letter to FBI director
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/3738192.
http://truthout.org/docs_03/030803A.shtml
"We should be deluding neither ourselves nor the American people that there is any way the FBI, despite the various improvements you are implementing, will be able to stem the flood of terrorism that will likely head our way in the wake of an attack on Iraq."
Minneapolis, MN 55401
February 26, 2003
FBI Director Robert Mueller
FBI Headquarters
Washington D.C.
Dear Director Mueller:
In June, 2002, on the eve of my testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, you told me that you appreciate constructive criticism and that FBI agents should feel free to voice serious concerns they may have about senior-level FBI actions. Since then I have availed myself twice of your stated openness.
At this critical point in our country's history I have decided to try once again, on an issue of even more consequence for the internal security posture of our country. That posture has been weakened by the diversion of attention from al-Qaeda to our government's plan to invade Iraq, a step that will, in all likelihood, bring an exponential increase in the terrorist threat to the U.S., both at home and abroad.
In your recent testimony to the Senate, you noted that "the al-Qaeda network will remain for the foreseeable future the most immediate and serious threat facing this country," adding that "the prevention of another terrorist attack remains the FBI's top priority." You then noted that a "U.S.-Iraq war could prompt Baghdad to more directly engage al-Qaeda and perhaps provide it with weapons of mass destruction." But you did not connect these very important dots.
Your recent briefings of field management staff have thrown light on the immense pressures you face as you try to keep the FBI intact and functioning amid persistent calls for drastic restructuring. You have made it clear that the FBI is perilously close to being divided up and is depending almost solely upon the good graces of Attorney General Ashcroft and President Bush for its continued existence. Clearly, this tense environment poses a special challenge to those like you who are responsible for providing unbiased, objective intelligence and national security advice to the country's leaders. But I would implore you to step out of this pressure-cooker for a few minutes and consider the following:
1) The FBI is apparently the source for the public statement that there are 5,000 al-Qaeda terrorists already in the U.S. I would ask you to inquire as to whether this figure is based on any hard data. If it is, rather, an estimate based largely on speculation, this can only feed the suspicion, inside the organization and out, that it is largely the product of a desire to gain favor with the administration, to gain support for FBI initiatives and possibly even to gain support for the administration's initiatives.
2) What is the FBI's evidence with respect to a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Polls show that Americans are completely confused about who was responsible for the suicidal attacks on 9-11 with many blaming Iraq. And it is clear that this impression has been fostered by many in the Administration. As far as the FBI is concerned, is the evidence of such a link "bulletproof," as Defense Secretary Rumsfeld claims, or "scant," as General Brent Scowcroft, Chairman of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board has said? The answer to this is of key importance in determining whether war against Iraq makes any sense from the FBI's internal security point of view. If the FBI does have independent data verifying such a connection, it would seem such information should be shared, at least internally within the FBI.
3) If, as you have said, "the prevention of another terrorist attack remains the FBI's top priority," why is it that we have not attempted to interview Zacarias Moussaoui, the only suspect in U.S. custody charged with having a direct hand in the horror of 9-11? Although al-Qaeda has taken pains to compartmentalize its operations to avoid compromise by any one operative, information obtained from some al-Qaeda operatives has nonetheless proved invaluable. Moussaoui almost certainly would know of other al-Qaeda contacts, possibly in the U.S., and would also be able to alert us to the motive behind his and Mohammed Atta's interest in crop dusting.
Similarly, there is the question as to why little or no apparent effort has been made to interview convicted terrorist Richard Reid, who obviously depended upon other al-Qaeda operatives in fashioning his shoe explosive. Nor have possible links between Moussaoui and Reid been fully investigated. It therefore appears that the government may have sacrificed the possibility of acquiring information pertinent to future attacks, in order to conduct criminal prosecution of these two individuals. Although prosecution serves worthy purposes, including deterrence, standard practice in "Organized Crime/Terrorism 101" dictates imaginative, concerted attempts to make inroads into well-organized, cohesive groups. And sometimes that requires "dealing with the devil."
In short, it is a matter of priorities. And lack of follow-through with regard to Moussaoui and Reid gives a hollow ring to our "top priority;" i. e., preventing another terrorist attack.
4) It is not clear that you have been adequately apprized of the potential damage to our liaison relationships with European intelligence agencies that is likely to flow from the growing tension over Iraq between senior U.S. officials and their counterparts in key West European countries. There are far more al-Qaeda operatives in Europe than in the U.S., and European intelligence services, including the French, are on the frontlines in investigating and pursuing them. Indeed, the Europeans have successfully uncovered and dismantled a number of active cells in their countries.
In the past, FBI liaison agents stationed in Europe benefitted from the expertise and cooperation of European law enforcement and intelligence officers. Information was shared freely, and was of substantial help to us in our investigations in the U.S. You will recall that prior to 9-11, it was the French who passed us word of Moussaoui's link to terrorism.
5) I know the FBI is no longer (or will shortly be no longer) in charge of regulating the color codes, but I expect we will still have input. I realize that decisions to change color codes are made at the most senior level, but perhaps you can caution senior officials about the downside to alarming the public unless there is adequate reason to do so. Increased vigilance must be encouraged when needed, but the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces can easily get bogged down in attempting to pursue all the leads engendered by panicky citizens. This, in turn, draws resources away from more important, well predicated and already established investigations.
Unintended consequences like the recent stampede in the Chicago dance club (which initial news accounts reported to be the case) can also occur when the public is put on these heightened alerts. The terrorists win in such circumstances even without attacking.
6) The vast majority of the one thousand plus persons "detained" in the wake of 9-11 did not turn out to be terrorists. They were mostly illegal aliens. We have every right, of course, to deport those identified as illegal aliens during the course of any investigation. But after 9-11, Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seem to be essentially PR purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to supply grist for statements on our progress in fighting terrorism. The balance between individuals' civil liberties and the need for effective investigation is hard to maintain even during so-called normal times, let alone times of increased terrorist threat or war. It is, admittedly, a difficult balancing act. But from what I have observed, particular vigilance may be required to head off undue pressure (including subtle encouragement) to detain or "round up" suspects--particularly those of Arabic origin.
7) As I believe you know, I have a reputation for being quite "conservative" on legal and policy issues regarding law enforcement. I have complained loudly on occasions when some of our laws and procedures have-unnecessarily, in my view, hindered our ability to move boldly against crime. At the same time, I know from experience that the FBI's policy on permissible use of deadly force has served the FBI and the country well. It should be noted, however, that the Administration's new policy of "preemptive strikes" abroad is not consistent with the Department of Justice's (DOJ's) "deadly force policy" for law enforcement officers. DOJ policy restricts federal agents to using deadly force only when presented with an imminent threat of death or serious injury (essentially in self-defense or defense of an innocent third party). I believe it would be prudent to be on guard against the possibility that the looser "preemptive strike" rationale being applied to situations abroad could migrate back home, fostering a more permissive attitude towards shootings by law enforcement officers in this country.
8) I believe the FBI, by drawing on the perspective gained from its recent history, can make a unique contribution to the discussion on Iraq. The misadventure in Waco took place well before your time as Director, but you will probably recall that David Koresh exerted the same kind of oppressive control over members of his Branch Davidian followers, as Saddam Hussein does over the Iraqis. The parallel does not stop there.
Law enforcement authorities were certain Koresh had accumulated a formidable arsenal of weapons and ammunition at his compound and may have been planning on using them someday. The FBI also had evidence that he was sexually abusing young girls in the cult. After the first law enforcement assault failed, after losing the element of surprise, the Branch Davidian compound was contained and steadily increasing pressure was applied for weeks. But then the FBI decided it could wait no longer and mounted the second assault--with disastrous consequences. The children we sought to liberate all died when Koresh and his followers set fires leading to their mass death and destruction.
The FBI, of course, cannot be blamed for what Koresh set in motion. Nevertheless, we learned some lessons from this unfortunate episode and quickly explored better ways to deal with such challenges. As a direct result of that exploration, many subsequent criminal/terrorist "standoffs" in which the FBI has been involved have been resolved peacefully and effectively. I would suggest that present circumstances vis-a-vis Iraq are very analagous, and that you consider sharing with senior administration officials the important lessons learned by the FBI at Waco.
You are only too well aware that fighting the war on terrorism and crime is an unbelievably difficult mission that will only become more difficult in the years to come, adversely affecting future generations of Americans. The extraneous pressures currently being brought to bear by politicians of both parties upon the FBI and other U.S. intelligence agencies, however, only worsen the present situation.
I know that my comments appear so presumptuous for a person of my rank in the organization and I'm very sorry for that impression. A word of explanation is therefore probably in order as to why I feel moved to write you directly about these issues. A good part of the reason lies in a promise I made to myself after I realized the enormity of what resulted when FBI Headquarters Supervisory personnel dismissed the warnings of Minneapolis agents pre-September 11, 2001. I was well aware of the forceful but frustrated efforts being made by Minneapolis case agents and their supervisor in their efforts to get Headquarters to move. But since my own role was peripheral, I did not think I could be of much additional help. Since that fateful day of September 11, 2001, however, I have not ceased to regret that perhaps I did not do all that I might have done.
I promised myself that in the future I would always try.
I appreciate that you alone do not determine policy on the terrorist threat from inside or outside the country--that, indeed, you may have little influence in the crafting of broad domestic or foreign policy. And it seems clear to me now that the decision to attack Iraq was taken some time ago and you, even as FBI Director, may be little more than a helpless bystander.
Such an attack, though, may have grave consequences for your ability to discharge your responsibility to protect Americans, and it is altogether likely that you will find yourself a helpless bystander to a rash of 9-11s. The bottom line is this: We should be deluding neither ourselves nor the American people that there is any way the FBI, despite the various improvements you are implementing, will be able to stem the flood of terrorism that will likely head our way in the wake of an attack on Iraq. What troubles me most is that I have no assurance that you have made that clear to the president.
If you believe my concerns have merit, I would ask you to share them with the president and attorney general. We no doubt can agree that our Government has a gargantuan task facing it of melding American foreign policy to make the world, and primarily United States soil, a safer place. I pray for our American and allied world leaders' success in achieving this most important objective.
Thank you so much for allowing me to express these thoughts. They are personal in nature and should not be construed as representing the view of any FBI unit or other agents.
Yours truly,
Coleen Rowley
Special Agent, Minneapolis
Published 6 March 2003 in the Minneapolis Star Tribune
- Let's add the following to the DMCA:
- You are allowed to back up the stuff you've bought legally, as long as you don't perform it or infringe on the rights of the owners by selling it
- You cannot sell media covered by the DMCA with a non-negotiable license because said license is unenforceable as of now.
- You can do whatever you need to do in order to watch the media, as long as you don't go against #1.
- If you don't have a way to see/hear/whatever the media is, you can do what you need to in order to see/hear it as long as you don't sell/perform it
Is that about right?Webmaster Wanted - Entropic Reactions
circus trick going to modify the DMCA......Oh, not that kind of balance act.
"I can't drive 55. It only goes 38."
I'm all for the government taking the technology that prevents me from making backup copies of games and music and reducing it to a pile of smoldering dung. Smoldering dung is, in my book, way cooler than an irreplaceable copy of Unreal 2003 that my sister rolls over with my computer chair (hypothetically speaking... grr...)
But let's not forget that there are legitimate concerns about the pirating of software and music. It's not just the RIAA and other large organizations. The widespread pirating of software does, in fact, have the ability to cripple businesses that produce it. As I recall, the guys that made Thief made next to nothing on Thief 2 (and are no longer in business as a result), but everyone I knew had a copy.
So I'm Asking Slashdot <dramatic music>: What should companies be doing to prevent the loss of income from pirating while leaving inviolate the right of the consumer to make copies of materials to which we own legal license?</dramatic music>
I know, I know, we talk about this all the time, but I don't think anyone's offered a suggestion that would really work; this is a tough nut to crack.
Peace,
~SL
Not whorin', just informin'.
Dear Congressman/Congresswoman,
I would like to encourage you to support Representative Zoe Lofgren's "Balance Act" (H.R. 1066). This act seeks to balance the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and clarify consumers fair use rights for digital content.
Like Representative Lofgren, I believe that "Contrary to the intent of Congress, the DMCA has been used to legitimize...control over consumer uses. It's been used to prohibit lawful users from circumventing technical restrictions, even to pursue their fair use rights."
I believe that Fair Use is an important issue that's been overlooked in the debate, and that the long term effects of the DMCA on Fair Use are detrimental to society. Passage of this Act will be a boon preserving the Fair Use rights of your constituents.
Sincerely,
-----
Interesteing reference in Section 4 of the legislation:
SECTION 4:
Today, when a consumer purchases a book, they are free to lend their copy to a friend, or to sell their copy to a used books store. Section 4 allows consumers to do the same thing with digital content by extending the first sale doctrine - codified in section 109 of Title 17 - to digital transmissions. At the same time, it protects copyright holders by restricting such transmissions to a single recipient and requiring consumers to transmit their copies with copy-control restrictions in place. Consumers also have to get rid of their copy after they transmit the work to someone else. (underline added by me)
This is good, legal, and just. If only people would do that. Sure it is a pain to delete your copy when you lend it out, or to remember who has it and if they "gave it back" (by deleting their copy or by sending/ftping it back to you).
The real important part of this law is the extension of the fair use to digital works, even if it shouldn't be obviously there by default. Having something expressly writting rather than implied is necessary.
(Simpson's quote regarding illegal practices performed in international waters)
"Over there is a ship re-broadcasting major league baseball with implied oral consent instead of express written consent."
robi
I was going to send a message to my representative about this until I realized that Zoe Lofgren is my representative. Therefore, I win.
Maybe con-gress isn't the opposite of pro-gress all of the time after all...
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
BALANCE is The Benefit Authors without Limiting Advancement or Net Consumer Expectations Act.
Obviously, we need legislation to keep our representatives from wasting too much time thinking up clever acronyms. I would like to propose a bill entitled Legislation Insulated from Acronyms by Representatives.
Oh, wait...
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
What should they do?
Make software cheaper, and make software better. Same goes for audio CDs.
The proposed title 17 section 123(b) is crippled in that it doesn't apply to barring licensure of software in ways that would impede limits on copyright in title 17. Nice as this generally is, it's still not going far enough in protecting customers and promoting science.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Everyone knows that people will violate copy protection algorithms anyway, whether it is legal or not. And, the people who break the protection are not (in most cases) the average Joe. What I see this law doing is allowing enterprising individuals, who are the ones most commonly blocked by the DMCA's restriction of fair use, to continue to go about their business, in a legal fashion. This legislation just strips off the layer of rules that prevented currently legal activities from continuing, without weakening any of the rules for violation of copyrights.
I went ahead and read the article... not only does she seem to "get it," she also seems to be trying to put it into law in a relatively unintrusive way... by (a) extending some definitions, (b) codifying into written law some points long held in common law (e.g., those regarding fair use), and (c) definitively casting shrinkwrap licenses as unenforceable to the extent that they might be used to "take away" the Fair Use rights of consumers.
:)
It's a very well-written and fine-tuned attempt to swing the balance of copyright back toward the public again. It's not overreaching (as was the DMCA) and seems to be able to do only what it was intended to do - restore Fair Use - and no more.
It also supports things like DeCSS by making legal the disemmination of tools to allow Fair Use to be exercised IF the copyright holders do not make such means availalbe. This is tantamount to telling the RIAA and MPAA and BSA (Business Software Alliance), "Fair Use is here to stay - so you'd best figure out a way to deal with this issue technologically right now (something they have been VERY reluctant to attempt), instead of beating it to death with legislation. You have your choice - you may choose to find a solution you like - but if you don't/can't/won't address the problem, someone else can now fix it for you whether you like it or not."
Applause for Zoe!
Now, I'm off to write my congresscritter - or perhaps (since her local office is right across the street from where I work), visit in person to make my views on this matter known.
--Posted by myself.
One thing that it's important to realize is that the DMCA (and other laws of the same stripe) not only have no effect at all on piracy, they were never really intended to address piracy, regardless of all the lip service provided in that direction.
These laws are primarily a control issue, and those that bought these laws (and bought they certainly were, there is no evidence at all that the general voting constituency clamored for these laws), want to have complete control over how (and where and on what) you experience their content, and the concept of fair use is anathema to them.
The vast majority of piracy can be addressed by directly targeting the major pirating organizations that distribute in a mass production fashion.
I fully support the right of copyright owners to have the limited rights granted to them, and fully support targeting anyone who actively violates copyright law. But none of these laws, nor any of the other copyright protection schemes do anything but inconvenience the general user and attempt to criminalize legitimate fair use behaviour. The actual copyright violators out there are not detrimentally affected by these issues, at all.
In addition, laws such as the DMCA are far more often being used to hamper and threaten legitimate competition, rather than address real copyright violations.
The suggestion that has the most chance of working is to target the actual violators, and stop treating the general population as criminals simply because they actually bought the product.
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.
I know, I know, we talk about this all the time...
And the reason we talk about it all the time is that these two desirable things can't be reconciled without ever-greater levels of technological evil stuff materializing (Paladium, anyone?). Give me the technological ability to have my fair use rights, and I've also got the technological ability to pirate.
The world is messy.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
From page 8:
(c) Circumvention for Noninfringing uses -
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, a person who lawfully obtains a copy or phonorecord of a work, or who lawfully receives a transmission of a work, may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to the work or protects a right of a copyright holder under this title if -
(A) such act is necessary to make nonifringing use of the work under this title; and
(B) copyright holder fails to make publicly available the necessary means to make such noninfringing use without additional cost or burden to such person.
I don't agree with (A) "and" (B); I think it should be (A) *or* (B) there. Why should anyone's fair use be impacted by any "means" that copyright holders may or may not provide? In fact, this word "means" is not defined anywhere. Since when is it *fair use* that everyone has to use the "means" that copyright holders provide for consumption of their content?
They should have a copyright only on content, and, as long as I don't violate any other laws, I should be able to use whatever "means" I want to enjoy that content, whether or not similar "means" already exist from the copyright holders.
..because, if this passes into law, my eleet DeCSS t-shirt will be uncool.
Please, leave me this last consolation in an otherwise gloomy existence
of being shunned by my peers. I beg you, vote against this monstrosity.
Finally, an attempt to plug the holes left open by the DMCA. It would seem that the RIAA, MPAA, and many software companies are largely to blame for their own predicament since the former two were willing to enter the electronic age on their own and only recently began initiatives to do the same whiole the third had reps using false advertising then suing customers who proved them wrong. While artists/musicians do have a right to recieve compensation for their works, the RIAA should not have a legally-protected monopoly on CDs even in the face of fair use. Many of the people who use Kazaa and similar services would likely stop if the greed of the CEOs and certain musicians allowed for a drop in price. Similarly, software companies should not be allowed to make false claims like "unbreakable codes" then litigate people who show how fradulent these claims are. If anything, the latter companies should be liable for false advertising and deceptive business practices, not allowed to prosper and benefit from a protectionist corporate cloak. How can we balance the need for protecting consumer and producer alike? I wonder if it would be possible to use binary files of some sort, like MP3s that could be transferred all over the place but would only work given another piece of software encoded by, say, an IP address. Artists and companies who work hard and play fair should get some benefit back, but we also need a counter-DMCA to punish both the pirates and the companies who blatantly exploit the technology for profit.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
That's because their publisher (Eidos) never paid them their royalties for Thief 2. Looking Glass went under before they were due. Eidos was having its own financial difficulties at the time (overfunding Daikatana didn't help there), and was unable to rescue them.
Oh yes, pirates harm Microsoft so much that they only have a 30% profit margin.
#include <disclaimer.h>
As for software, honestly I can't address that other than to say you're the first person I've ever heard claim that Thief 2 was so heavily pirated it ran them out of business. They certainly didn't claim that. I certainly bought my copy legitimately. What more do you want?
Most people are reasonable and law abiding and recognize the value of paying others for the entertainment they provide. If the value proposition of the entertainment was good, piracy would only infect the segments of society that either 1) simply can't afford much of anything (who arguably aren't likely to have internet access anyway) or 2) would be pirating for the fun of it regardless.
Me, I think that being able to download music, check it out, THEN decide if I want to buy it is a Good Thing[tm]. Given that ClearChannel controls so much of the radio market that I hardly hear anything I give a damn about on the airwaves any more (to get me excited to go buy stuff), and given that the labels as a general rule are releasing so much crap, and given that the resale value of a CD is insignificant (I'm lucky to get $5 for a new CD I bought for $18 and listened to once? Insane), I don't see any other avenue to go through. All the MP3's I've downloaded fall into three broad categories:
- things I thought I might like, but didn't (the new Massive Attack, the new Tori Amos both qualify here)
- things I thought I might like, and did, and then went and bought the cd
- things that I'd buy if they were available from the labels, but they don't deign to release (e.g. The Boomtown Rats _Fine Art of Surfacing_)
None of these is a case where I am stealing from the artist. If anything, the labels, by refusing to release older work that is still of interest to me, is denying the artists the chance to make more royalties from me. If I were forced to spend $13 net on albums I didn't like, I just wouldn't spend anything. That's not a value proposition I can live with, and the industry ought to think hard about how much less they'd be making if everyone made that judgement.7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
this is a tough nut to crack.
Communist Russia jokes aside...this nut is so tough that it's cracking us.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
First of all, I think you are looking at things in a sort of strange way. I am assuming you are not a troll in this response and that you truly believe what you are saying and are asking the question with honest intent.
I think that the purpose of copyright law is to build an intellectual commons by leasing the commonly owned intellectual property back to their contributors. The emphasis needs to be on fair use and the transition to the public domain rather than the sort of perpetuity of ownership and control over these things that are now the focus of the law (remembering that the CTEA was passed because Disney was about to lose copyright on the Mickey Mouse character).
So rather than asking "how can publisher's protect their investment" we need to be asking "How can we entice publishers to release material so that it can eventually become public domain?"
This is not an easy question to answer, so most people have answered simply by not asking.
My proposal would do as follows:
1: Reduce the copyright term for digital works back to 28 years.
2: Require DRM-free versions to exist in an escrow service provided by the US Copyright Office. When the copyright term expires, anyone can, for cost of copying and shipping, requiest a copy of the DRM-free content.
3: Allow total restriction for the duration of the copyright term including any DRM and overriding first sale.
4: If software is the content being protected, require that the *source code* be escrowed, not just the binaries.
Then we can try to reduce the copyright term of print items too.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
So I'm Asking Slashdot : What should companies be doing to prevent the loss of income from pirating while leaving inviolate the right of the consumer to make copies of materials to which we own legal license?
Simple. Realize that these companies are not losing money to piracy.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
Honestly, is there a topic that the Simpson's hasn't covered yet? Possibly abortion since I can't recal that ever comming up in an episode. But when you have 300 episodes, what can't you cover!
robi
Why should anyone's fair use be impacted by any "means" that copyright holders may or may not provide? In fact, this word "means" is not defined anywhere
Excellent point... and consider the rest of "B"..
copyright holder fails to make publicly available the necessary means to make such noninfringing use without additional cost or burden to such person.
So, if this passes, does that mean that I'm allowed to break the CSS on my copy of "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" if Albert Broccoli doesn't give me a free DVD player?
Cool.
...who thinks it's sort of sad whenever I hear someone admit that they don't even know who their elected officials for the FEDERAL government are?
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
Repeal the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extention Act!
I submitted this story yesterday and the all knowing /. editors rejected it...
but besides that gripe I must say that this is an important opportunity for us. It may not be everything we have ever wanted, but it is a step in the right direction. Zeo is also supports fair use of peer to peer networks as well
These laws are primarily a control issue, and those that bought these laws (and bought they certainly were, there is no evidence at all that the general voting constituency clamored for these laws), want to have complete control over how (and where and on what) you experience their content, and the concept of fair use is anathema to them.
This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that I see on here all the time. It's insightful from the perspective that it points out that it's detrimental to society to have restrictions in place that prevent the free flow of art and information. I wholeheartedly agree. On the other hand, this kind of argument fails to address the real question here.
The main reason I have a problem here is that I can't imagine a boardroom full of executives coming to the conclusion that free use is anathema. "Yes," they say, "if we were to prevent our product from being sampled and redistributed for educational purposes, we'd make millions!" In my mind, there's simply no way that's the case.
Remember that the people behind these corporations are exactly that; people. They're not monsters hell-bent on destroying civilization, they are simply under pressure from their constituents (anyone who owns stock) to make money doing what they do. That's the way it should work; capitalism is about profit motive. If owners of copyright all over the country want to prevent the reproduction and distribution of their intellectual property from being so easy that an autistic chipmunk could figure it out, they probably have a genuine fear of losing real customers.
Don't get me wrong here, I hate copy protection. All I'm saying is that you haven't provided an answer to my question. Given that copy protection is both worthless and harmful to the consumer, how should a copyright owner go about preventing their information from being spread all over the world and enjoyed without their being recompensed? Peace, ~SL
Editors?
Perhaps the moderators missed the first line:
I am writing to encourage you to support Representative Zoe Lofgren's "Balance Act" (HR 1066).
As a software developer AND digital content consumer, I strongly believe in striking a balance between both content consumers' and producers' digital rights. HR 1066 does just this by addressing some of the more onerous effects the DMCA has (and will continue to have, if unchecked) on our future in the Information Age.
I am a strong believer in the power of the free exchange of information, and many content producing corporate media groups and organizations (at their worst embodied by organizations such as the BSA, the MPAA, and the RIAA) have so far shown absolutely no concern for the content consumer's Fair Use Rights OR the content producer's (in the form of artists, programmers, musicians, etc). rights of control over their own creations.
A balance MUST be struck, and thus far no organization or group has had the resources to combat the huge amount of money that corportate lobbiests have used to further their own profit-driven goals.
Copyright and intellectual property rights exist for the Public Good, not an unlimited, government-guaranteed revenue stream. HR 1066 is a start to bringing those ideals back to what our founding fathers had in mind when they established this great country.
I would like to close with a quote from Thomas Jefferson:
" If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices."
- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813
Please SUPPORT HR 1066, and oppose any further laws that seek to erode our Fair Use Rights.
It really is, and it bites. Really, I think this sort of discussion is important, though, because even if the problem just gets harder and harder to solve, we must never give up. This site is a forum where the best and brightest come to speak their minds (and people like me, too), so let's keep trying to lick this thing and maybe we'll come up with a good idea. It never hurts to try.
~SL
I find it mildly disturbing that American copyright law ultimately decides the law for the rest of the world (in terms of DRM technologies etc.)
Oh for a good nights sleep....
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
Please, Oh Please, don't give them ideas.
I know this isn't strictly on-topic; my point is just that you conclude from the fact that Congresswoman Lofgren has the same position you have on this issue that she's the greatest leader our nation has ever seen. Keep an eye on her, and judge her by her entire record, not just her most recent bill.
I write in my journal
You'll be getting a "Comment Moderation" digest in your messages in a few hours. It will tell you all the moderation that was done to your comments today.
The system has worked like this for many weeks. You must not post much.
Also, your post was ABSURDLY off-topic. I know I just said you must not post much, but I really wish you wouldn't post so much.
I might add that I am so pro-content-provider because I think that this proposal would allow an open content community to flourish very well because:
1: No digital restrictions on their works
2: They could access all digital works over 28 years old!
And most of the money gained by publishers happens in that time anyway.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
sucks my balls
expecting the government to embrace it is like expecting the FAA to mandate Open Source flying machines that are clones of the Wright brothers design.
Pull your heads out of your asses you worthless hippies.
One thing that it's important to realize is that the DMCA (and other laws of the same stripe) not only have no effect at all on piracy, they were never really intended to address piracy, regardless of all the lip service provided in that direction.
I don't know where you get that from. I think the DMCA was exactly intended to counter the piracy of Kazaa and its relatives. The content industry is hoping to retain complete control over how its files get copied, through technical means, and it needs the DMCA to prevent people from breaking those locks.
Although I'm sympathetic to the industry's problems (how to make money creating content when anyone can share it for free), I think that the solution (the DMCA etc) are worse that the problem they try to fix. But, it's weird to argue that the DMCA is completely unrelated to this problem...
The vast majority of piracy can be addressed by directly targeting the major pirating organizations that distribute in a mass production fashion.
What are you talking about? The vast majority of piracy is via P2P file sharing networks, which are as popular as ever, despite all the lawsuits.
Does anyone else find irony in the fact that the bill is distributed in Adobe PDF format? I seem to recall them bringing a certain Sklyarov character running afoul of them and the DMCA a few years ago....
The government needs to at least provide the option of PostScript, text-only or other non-corporate formats for bills and laws.
Don't read what you want to see (government being a bunch of bastards) into this. Read it objectively and fairly.
First of all, if a company releases a product that allows you to copy their files, but that copy isn't of sufficient quality to use them under the fair use doctrine (which requires you to be able to make an IDENTICAL copy, actually) then they're not in compliance with this law.
>Alternately that clause can be interpreted as:
>
> "You must use a Sony CD-Player/PC to rip Sony CDs, since they provide such a player."
Yes indeed... if you buy a Sony brand CD, and they, without any action on your part (which would constitute a burden) sends you a free Sony CD-Player/PC, then you are indeed legally bound to use it to rip their CDs.
Of course, it might be more realistic to think that they might include really lousy software on the CD itself that allows you to rip their music. But if it's too lousy, then it's a burden, and you can do whatever you like again. And certainly, if it's Windows only and you have a Linux box, then it would be a burden to have to install Windows in order to do it. Let alone if you have a Mac.
Don't let your prejudices blind you: the government is in fact capible of performing actions which benefit you. Mind you, I don't expect this to pass... but it could, if enough people clamor for it.
Sadly, most people would rather snipe at it, or grouse about the way things are, then actually try to change things.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
What should they do? Make software cheaper, and make software better. Same goes for audio CDs.
I want more for less. And the fact that I can't have it is somehow indicative of a fatal flaw in our economic or political system. Waa.
I write in my journal
It doesn't require you to be able to make an identical copy, it requires you to be able to make a 'functionally identical' copy. Whatever that means, legally speaking.
But I still think that if you can't enjoy the music in the same way whether it's original or copy, then it's hardly 'functionally identical'.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
I would like to apologize to you on behalf of all of us who have occassion to belong to the moderator class of /. user.
Clearly one of us has been ignoring his doctor's advice to stop sniffing glue.
Had your post been moderated down as "Overrated" or perhaps even "troll," I wouldn't have agreed, but I would have let it slide without comment, even in metamoderation.
Not being one to care overmuch about protecting my karma, however, I feel it behooves me to make this gesture in your behalf and beg your indulgence in not holding the single act against an entire class.
Now *this* post, in the limited sense, is offtopic. Of course that's only if you take the limited view and don't see the validity of comments on the topic as being on topic. Personally I believe a certain amount of metatopical discussion only adds to the depth and intelligence of the overall base, but clearly there are those who differ.
Or sniff glue.
Yours,
KFG
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
No, seriously. I appreciate the fact that you went out of your way to post something that acknowledges that we are trying to balance two different sets of interests here: on the one hand, the rights of the artists and publishers, and on the other hand the liberty of everybody else. Both of them have to give up something. The only question is who has to sacrifice what.
I write in my journal
Looking Glass Studios ( the makers of thief, system shock, flight unlimited, and terra nova, among others)did NOT go under as a result of piracy (although piracy may or may not have been an issue for them). the reason they went under is that funding they had been expecting from Eidos was taken from them and spent on the great pile of dung known as DAIKATANA.
If this is passed, I can't imagine a situation where someone will be found guilty of breaking the circumvention law, where their action wouldn't have already been a crime in 1997.
Can anyone think of a situation where the circumvention provisions won't be useless?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
This bill has been refered to the Judiciary Committee and from there will most likely be sent to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
Everybody ought to lick the stamp and write there Rep. but if you vote in the districts of any of the following it is especially important.
Thank you,
JFMILLER
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) [Chair]
Lamar Smith (R-TX) (Sub Committee chair)
John Conyers, Jr (D-MI) * [Ranking Democrat]
Howard L. Berman (D-CA) *
Henry J Hyde (R-IL) *
Richard Boucher (D-VA) *
Elton Gallegly (R-CA) *
Robert C Scott (D-VA)
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)*
Jerrold Nadler (D NY)
William L. Jenkins (R-TN) *
Melvin L. Watt (D-NC)
Spencer Bachus (R-AB) *
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) * [Bill's Sponcer]
Mark Green (R-WI)*
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)
Rick Keller (R-FL)*
Maxine Waters (D-CA) *
Melissa Heart (R-PA) *
Martin T Meehan (D-MA) *
Mike Pence (R-IN) *
William Dalahunt (D-MA) *
Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) *
Robert Wexler (D- FL) *
John Carter (R-TX) *
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) *
John Hostettler (R-IN)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-NY) *
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Adam B Schiff (D-CA)
Chriss Cannon (R-UT)
Linda T. Sanchez (D-CA)
Steve King (R-IA)
Howard Coble (R-NC)
Steve Cabot (R-OH)
Tom Feeney (R-FL)
Chris Cannon (R-UT)
* -- Member, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
I don't argue that kazaa, et.al. are not a part of the problem, merely that they aren't, by far, the most economically damaging form of distribution. And anyway, it can be argued that, in some cases, the p2p method of distribution is just as mass production as the piracy rings.
The point being that the DMCA, and the various forms of copy protection don't actually DO anything to stop this behaviour. Copyright law prior to the DMCA had all the necessary legal footing to pursue copyright violators.
My original point still stands, pursue the violators (p2p or otherwise), don't make laws that penalize valid use, and don't treat legal users as criminals (which is what these mechanisms do in practice, if not in principle).
More importantly, don't penalize the technology (p2p, etc.) to address the problem.
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.
The toner cartridge scandal, and chips on inkjets is a disaster for the planet and landfills.
Insert clause like - The end purchaser has complete control over the sold hardware. Necessary techniques to ensure operability, interoperability and resale are permitted.
A legislated freepost for unusable products/waste , where products must be recycled to international standards using non thirld world labor , would be a start. One can do it now.
I think companies should work smarter, not harder, to make a profitable business model based on something kinda like this.
Representative McDermott,
I wish to express my support of California Representative Zoe Lofgren's Balance Act (H.R. 1066). It promises to fix the gross injustice imposed on consumers with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that inhibits fair use and ultimately restrains trade. It makes illegal the circumvention of technological restrictions in any case, even that which involves fair use such as the compression of a copyright-protected CD for use in an MP3 player or the burning of a "mix" CD of licensed songs. When a consumer buys a CD, they do it not for the media that a song is recorded on, but rather the song itself. The DMCA unreasonably limits the consumer's rights over their own property and makes criminals out of those who attempt to regain them.
Furthermore, the DMCA fails in its original intention of addressing the very real problem of Internet piracy. Draconian restrictions do not fix the problem, but rather exacerbate it by alienating consumers by effectively requiring illegal activity for fair use. It places special and unreasonable restrictions on digital recordings; someone can sell a used book or lend it to a friend but cannot with a digital recording that is lawfully obtained.
Please vote for H.R. 1066 and encourage your fellow representatives to do likewise.
I read the bill. IANAL, but I am reasonably well informed. Basically, here's what it looks like to me.
;-)
You have a DVD. Either you have a player (of some kind), or you don't have a player. If you don't have a player, you have the theoretical legal right to break the copy protection on that specific DVD in order to make an archival copy of it, since you don't have the necessary means to make a backup copy. However, good luck doing that without a DVD player of SOME kind. Personally, I think that's a little silly, and no judge would really sit still for it, but I can't think of too many ways it could be abused.
However, say you DO have a player of some kind, say a home DVD player hooked to your TV. (But no computer with a DVD drive.) You buy the DVD. If your home DVD player isn't capable of making copies, you have the right to break CSS on the DVD in order to make the copy. Including the right to buy a product that is designed solely to make such copies, with or without the permission of the copyright holder. If the copyright holder wishes to prosecute such companies, they would have to make publicly available the necessary means to copy their DVDs WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COST OR BURDEN to anyone who owns one.
If you have a computer with a DVD writable drive, then it's easier for them. They just have to make publicly available software that will allow you, with your computer setup, to copy their DVD. However, I don't own a copy of Windows, so if it were Windows-only software then it would cost me additional money to use the software, and therefore I can crack the DVD. If it ran on Linux, but didn't make acceptable copies, it would be a little murkier, but they'd really have to buy a judge to make it come out their way... fair use is designed to allow backup copies that can substitute for the original. If they can't, they're not copies. If it ran on Linux and really sucked from a UI standpoint, but ran relatively quickly and worked fine, then you're screwed... but then, of course, it would be exactly like every other Linux program, so...
Anyway, that's what I get from my reading.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
Or in other words, it's okay to rob people if they're rich enough to afford it?
I don't picture the executives saying literally, 'Let's counter fair use', but what they do say is, 'How can we make more money off of our content'? And in some cases, they come up with the idea that making it difficult or illegal to engage in fair use activities might make someone buy an extra copy, etc.
In addition, many of the apologists or spokespersons for the industries, such as Valenti, have stated outright that they don't consider fair use to be a valid concern for digital media. Bear in mind, that many of these people do see fair use as a threat to their bottom line, or their control of their content
I'm definitely all for capitalism, and I do understand the circumstances under which many of these decisions are made, but they are the wrong decisions, nonetheless, if for no other reason that treating your customers like criminals is most assuredly contrary to the profit motive, no matter how good it looks on paper. In addition, such methods are FAR more likely to result in the loss of customers than otherwise.
As before, the correct solution to these problems is to actually address the violations (and the violators) of the law, to treat your customers as though you really want their business (instead of begrudgingly treating them like a commodity), and to convince the general public that your product has enough value to justify their purchase.
The legal framework of copyright had sufficient strength to address actual copyright violators prior to the DMCA.
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.
that *with* the DMCA in place, as she is writ, the easiest way for me to play a DVD on my Linux install, or to have a backup copy, is to avail myself of the pirate market, thus driving that very market which the act was ostensibly intended to forstall.
Go figure.
This is always a good sign that a bad law was written for the wrong reasons. The Lexmark case is a real life example of a reductio ad absurdum argument agains the DMCA. I believe the correct Latin term of legalese for this is "doofey."
Another irony is that the very existence of the DMCA serves to retain VHS as the major consumer media. People like to copy shit. They will continue to use whatever medium is available to them to do so freely. Thus, VHS will also remain a valid market for pirates.
But think of this. I have a DVD legally purchased. I have a legal DVD player as well. I am thus licensed to output the content *without any violation of the DMCA.*
So, I use this to pump output to a VHS recorder and BINGO! I'm in the VHS pirate business, each VHS tape a first generation copy of the digital source, with perferctly legitimate licenses for everything but the final VHS.
The DMCA isn't an antipiracy tool. It *enhances* the output of analog piracy. Legally.
What's wrong with this picture? As you so eloquently show, the DMCA is *not* an antipiracy measure. It is a control of the legitimate licensee measure, and one step on the road to pay per view/read/listen.
I keep buying books, on paper. I advise you do the same. It beats the hell out of trying to memorize them on a pay per read basis.
KFG
The real evil isn't the DMCA, but copyrights being taken to their logical conclusion. In the mind of the RIAA - the DMCA is just a way for them to secure rights they've always been told that they have.
If I told someone that they owned a house, but then said they couldn't sell it, rent it, go inside it, use it, or even take a loan out on it - it would be a fraud. Either they own the house or they don't, and the same is true with copyrights today. We cant keep crying out that copyrights are some type of glorious rights that will help artists, and expect people never to try and transfer, sell, or secure them from new technologies that threaten them, like the internet.
That is why this whole compromize debate is pitifull. It reminds me of the people who insisted and desperately believed that the free states could peacefully get along with the slave states in the 1850's. Then as today, they just couldn't see that the root cause of the problem was people trying to exercise rights that they've been told they have, but didn't.
IMHO, the sooner we get to the point that copyrights are not really a just right - and get rid of them, the sooner we will be able to get on with the information age and make everyone happy.
I still remember the uncomfortable look on the woman from Red Hat's face when I asked her a question. I think it was probably a question she was tired of answering.
They were in town on a tour about four years ago and some of us went to see their presentation.
She was not happy when I asked her if it was okay for me to make copies of my Red Hat 5.0 CDs to share with my friends.
Courtney Love is a whore. If the Monkee's song (covered by the Sex Pistols, incidentally) "Stepping Stone" had anybody in mind, it was female reptiles like her.
So why does she have the prominence she does to say what she does? Because she's a crappy hack who nobody would ever want to hear perform, so she's a perfect 'non-megastar' for people to point to.
In addition, to answer your direct question, my argument would be that the only viable way to protect the copyright owner is to engender an awareness and respect for the rights of the copyright holder, and to demonstrate, by example, both that violators (and only violators) are penalized for their actions, and to reciprocate that respect back to the users of the copyrighted works in such a fashion as to make the user feel good about properly supporting the copyright owner.
Bad laws and active hatred for the users will directly engender the type of behaviour that leads to the violations.
That said, there will always be those who have no respect for the rights and property of others, and they are the ones we should penalize.
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.
hm.... George W Bush....
Are you a fan of the family or do you like one more then the other?
just like an slashdot poster. Yells out something before thinking
It's not that I want more for less, exactly. It's that ALL software is unsatisfactory in one way or another. Especially compared to the quality standards of most other products. Most people hate paying a lot of money only to be disappointed. And after you spend a thousand bucks on a few software packages that, while not exactly BROKEN, aren't particularly slick, you start to think that you aren't getting your money's worth. So you steal it. Why not? The industry will never stop piracy. So they need to give consumers some incentive to BUY stuff instead. Make it easy to purchase. Make it cheap. And make it PERFECT. Or at least, more perfect than it is now.
"encourage your representative to support the bill."
I don't have that much money.
Your name and address which ought to be in the district/state of the representative/senator that you're writing. Otherwise, all bets are off as to how it'll be handled.
For those who may not know it, Zoe Lofgren is representing Silicon Valley in congress.
So rather than being a rare honest and insightful figther for What's Right, she is just another politician running the errands of the corporations in her district. These just happen to be corporations whose agenda is aligned with the average Slashdot reader.
That doesn't mean this legislation isn't "right". But it's naive to believe that is why she is pushing for it.
Now that would be something to cheer about!
So where's the EFF mass-email on this?
As of 7pm CST, their front page newest items are:
March 7-11
Cory Doctorow at SWSX
Norwegian Appeals Court to Hear "DVD Jon" Case
Related: EFF media advisory, Johansen case archive, Free Jon mailing list
I don't really want to nitpick, but as a member of the EFF I expect to hear about something as seemingly as important as BALANCE from them ASAP. Where is the free fax page? I think Rep Lofgren can use all the support she can get.
I'm also uncomfortable using the "write your rep" system. A real phonecall or a physical fax is much harder to ignore than a bunch of emails. Not to mention email is routinely abused by special interest groups with fake addresses voicing fake concerns.
Time to bust out the fax modem I guess. Anyone know of free fax over IP that will fax to Washington?
Remember DOOM, when you'd log out, and if you had the Shareware version, it would exit with a giant advertisement, and if you had the full version, it would say "Thanks for buying our product, and if you didn't *buy* it, you're the scum of the Earth." The Windows 95 version on startup had a similar message--"Call this number if illegally copied" or something. Neither of these messages had any impact on anyone legal, but I also don't think there were any copy protection mechanisms on DOOM.
Surely that had to have had some effect, and wasn't in any way annoying. You could copy DOOM all you wanted as far as I know (I've changed hard drives, installed my copy on multiple computers, and haven't ever had any problems with it), but the exit message was vaguely threatening to people who didn't buy their product. IdGames put trust in their consumers, and was only in any way menacing to people who had illegally copied their big game. Quite frankly, I'd like to see more of that, because it's funny and poignant at the same time.
Sigs are like bumper stickers.
What should companies be doing to prevent the loss of income from pirating while leaving inviolate the right of the consumer to make copies of materials to which we own legal license? Locks only keep honest people out. So basically if a game company should only put nonminal copy protection on their games. Effectivly a "please dont copy me" sign. People who want to crack the game will. But people who are not too inclined to do so will be stopped. Above all, the copy protection shouldnt reduce the experience of paying customers.
What should companies be doing to prevent the loss of income from pirating while leaving inviolate the right of the consumer to make copies of materials to which we own legal license?
It's extremely simple: Make something worth buying, while still being cheap enough that we can afford to pay for it.
The target audience for most computer games these days roughly equates to "students", and students, almost by definition, have no money. I can't speak for all of slashdot, but if I could even afford some of the latest games (and if they ran on my platform *cough*, *cough*), then I would buy them in a hurry.
This basic economics here! If something doesn't sell, try reducing the price before slapping me in the face and using technology to take away my fair-use rights.
Oh yes, pirates harm Microsoft so much that they only have a 30% profit margin.
You're thinking of Apple. Microsoft has an 80 percent profit margin on products like Windows and Office.
Obviously, you don't know anything about Bill Gates. ;-)
"We should be deluding neither ourselves nor the American people that there is any way the FBI, despite the various improvements you are implementing, will be able to stem the flood of terrorism that will likely head our way in the wake of an attack on Iraq."
PDF is a open format; it may have been invented by Adobe, but I assure you that I have no Adobe software on my system, and I can freely create and view PDF files.
The government needs to at least provide the option of PostScript
Um, PostScript is also a creation of Adobe. So why would that be better? If PDF is evil because it comes from Adobe, wouldn't PostScript also be evil? And, conversely, if PostScript isn't evil (which is my opinion), then why on earth would PDF be evil?
The only differences I see between PostScript and PDF are that a) PDF is somewhat more powerful, and also somewhat safer, and b) Ghostview has been around longer than xpdf.
The original intent of copyright is to get the information spread all over the world and enjoyed. Being recompensed is just incentive to that end, not the end in itself. The fact that weve lost sight of that is a major part of the problem. The question you should be asking is not "How can I keep people from enjoying my work without giving me money?" but "How can I make money while people enjoy my work?"
Please support Rep. Zoe Lofgren's (D - CA) H.R. 1066. It is important to protect the fair use rights that all of us commonly use.
I wrote you some time ago encouraging you to reconsider the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) beacuse it stifles invention, creativity, and progress. Since that time, the DMCA has been used to prevent presentation of academic papers, jailed one or more software developers. It has generally been a tool of media conglomorates and large software companies to enforce "locks" on their products with overly severe CRIMINAL penalties.
One possible sinister future effect of this law is to allow media compaies to "own" history because it cannot be "unlocked" by anyone else. This sounds rather incredible, but is true.
A similar opinion can be found here:
http://anti-dmca.org/whats-wrong.html
Thank-you for your attention to this matter.
Not to target you specificly, a lot of people don't seem to get the real issues here.
Let's not forget about the legitimate concerns of the general public. The DMCA and DRM have very real consequences to the public's right to free speech, free press (meaning the ability to pubilsh), and copyrights. When I say copyrights, I mean everyone's copyright. Right now, this post I write is copyrighted under the Berne Convention. Documents and recordings created by the general public are worth many times more than your piddly little music and video game companies.
Someone who shoots a video with their camcorder should be able to copy the video without restrictions--they own the copyright. Someone who writes a document in MS Word 2010 should be able to copy, print, and transfer the document to any computer running any wordprocessing program. An email created by Outlook 2010 addressed to a specific person should be readable by that person no matter what email client he/she uses. The DMCA, Palladium, and other mechanisms will prevent the common person from doing such things.
As a Canadian, I think a little different action should be taken by our southern neighbors. Why not introduce a new bill called Freedom For the People and Justice for All? You can call it "Fuck the DMCA" for short; basically all it needs to do is repeal the DMCA in its whole misbegotten entirety.
Actually I was basing it off of figures I saw recently for Gross Revenue and Net Profit for the entire Microsoft corporation. Thirty percent is obscene enough without having to inflate it by focusing on a single product line. Interestingly enough, their Net Profit was almost the same as IBM's even though IBM's Gross Revenue was more than 3 times what Microsoft's was.
#include <disclaimer.h>
Nonsense. These corporations are already making money doing what they do. A law like the DMCA isn't required for them to continue to make money, only for them to make even more of it. Profit is fine. Profit at the expense of the rights of the people is not. It's the latter that these corporations are after, and that is why the people who run them are evil. They're evil because of their indifference, not because of their malevolence.
As for what these executives are after, I think that's quite clear: pay per view content on computers, with the money going directly to them without any middlemen. Can't have that without something like the DMCA, since otherwise there would be no means to bring legal pressure on people who release cracks for such schemes.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Storm Clouds Rise Over H-1B
"Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, introduced a bill this week to lift all limits on foreign workers "
She deleted this press release, but it's in the Google cache
She was among 26 House members (14 Democrats and 12 Republicans) who achieved perfect scores for their votes in the 105th Congress on encryption, securities litigation, patent reform, fast track, MFN, export controls, H1-B visas, and Y2K issues.
and she takes money from Microsoft!
(click on expand all).
Dump this wench!
As nice as this proposed legislation is, it is merely a baby step in the right direction. We should not settle for anything less than full repeal of the DMCA.
I am the master of the CLIT! No one rules the CLIT like me. I am the CLIT commander.
> I don't picture the executives saying literally, >'Let's counter fair use', but what they do say is, >'How can we make more money off of our content'? >And in some cases, they come up with the idea that >making it difficult or illegal to engage in fair >use activities might make someone buy an extra copy, etc.
The problem is that the two messages are somewhat intertwined. The market is near-- or perhaps even at-- the saturation level for content at current prices and conditions. If people wanted more $18.99 CDs, with the standard CD behaviour, they'd buy them.
In order to increase sales, they could:
1) Decrease prices, reaching new markets
2) Increase quality, possibly enticing some new purchasers and old purchasers alike
or
3) Create an artificial demand through technically or legally crippling the product, so people have to come back when the disc is scratched and dies, or they want a copy in the car they don't need to worry about melting in the summer heat.
They've chosen 3).
Actually, if you pull out another level of abstraction, the problem comes from a constant demand for *growth*, not mere profitability, from shareholders. This is fundamentally a broken system because no business can expand indefinitely . The content industry is reasonably profitable. Enjoy it, shareholders, and shut your pieholes!
It's just like a fascist dictatorship, without the punctual rail service!
If we don't comply, they will go to war and install a puppet Microsoft Palladium?
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
I am writing to you in the hope that you will support H.R. 1066 "The Balance Act" introduced by Zoe Lofgren (D-CA). The idea is to reinforce the concept of consumer rights in the area of copyright law. Ironically, the copyright industry would benefit most of all, as they evidently need Congress to require them to pay attention to the demands of their customers. I know it's hard to imagine an industry that needs Congress to help it think, but that is what you are dealing with here. Please help them.
Reform of DMCA is badly needed. The law has done absolutely nothing to deter piracy, while the oppressive side effects are quite real. When Wal*Mart threatens to invoke DMCA against people who compare prices via http://www.fatwallet.com, you know something is wrong! The arrest and bungled prosecution of Dimitry Sklyarov was an international fiasco. My personal interest in all of this is merely frustration with the technologically inept approach that Congress has taken so far.
Most computer users ignore the legal aspects of what they do online. Those who know about DMCA, the NET act, etc. are taking technical countermeasures. The end result for all of this is an "arms race" of technology to defeat a digitally repressive regime.
Consider how China is desperately trying to censor the Internet. Their efforts are laughable, until you consider that the copyright industry has bullied Congress into some of the same logic. This industry sure has a lot of clout -- absolutely incredible, considering it's just a bunch of technically-obsolescent middlemen who live in a "reality distortion field".
The intelligence community will tell you that gathering data from the Internet involves processing astronomical amounts of plain-text, unencrypted data. Failure to establish a balanced approach to copyright and digital media will create a huge underground Internet, where data is encrypted, users are anonymous, and US law is irrelevant. Keeping ordinary activity open and above-board would make the bad guys stick out like a sore thumb. Conversely, the status quo will lead us into a world where "criminals" trading Britney Spears' latest song will unwittingly camoflage Al Qaeda operatives exchanging data. Reform of copyright law in general and DMCA in particular would go a long way towards making the terrorists do their own research & development.
There is a great presentation called "Free Culture" available at http://www.eff.org/IP/freeculture/free.html Even if you don't agree with the content, you have to admire the presentation skills of Lawrence Lessig. It's basically the computer geek version of the "I have a dream" speech -- worth a look even if just to steal ideas for your own presentations.
From a political angle, certain Democrats have been the chief errand boys of the copyright industry; it's time to put them in their place. Even though the bill is introduced by a Democrat, it is the Republicans who have the most to gain by putting a leash on the copyright industry. The bill is H.R. 1066 -- I would appreciate your support.
Sincerely,
David Cavanaugh
What I'd like to know is why we (in the form of our government) should even grant a copyright for material that is only released in a copy restricted format?
After all the point of a copyright is that the material belongs to the public and is "leased" back to the author for a period of time. But if the public can't access the material once the copyright term has expired...?
As the answer to your question, let me suggest: "Prosecute those who infringe"
I have no problem with beating down the pirates and lamers. I do have a problem with the fact that fully half of the DMCA isn't about copy protection but access protection. Access protection does nothing to further the arts or promote development, instead, it allows publishers to turn their limited monopoly (on sometimes-permanent loan from the creator of the work) into a stranglehold across many layers of the economy. For instance a publisher could invent a unique system for encrypting e-books, and suddenly not only have the monopoly on Piers Anthony's books, but the monopoly on ways to read Piers Anthony's books.
I have to wonder if this doesn't boost piracy more than hinder it, as the access-derestricted versions leak out.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Do you have a reliable source available that states, directly, "Looking Glass shut down due to piracy"? All I see are apocryphal rumors.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
This is what SPAM should be used for, to broadcast this information.
Or in other words, it's okay to rob people if they're rich enough to afford it?
Yes.
This video exposes Disney's hypocrisy in enforcing its copyrights.
Will I retire or break 10K?
It's not that ... hate ... slick ... stop ... than it is now.
That's what Twirlip said, only he was more succint: Waa.
Sadly it is far more a truth than a joke
Courtney Love is a whore. If the Monkee's song (covered by the Sex Pistols, incidentally) "Stepping Stone" had anybody in mind, it was female reptiles like her. So why does she have the prominence she does to say what she does? Because she's a crappy hack who nobody would ever want to hear perform, so she's a perfect 'non-megastar' for people to point to.
What Courtney wrote in Salon has absolutely zip, zero, nada to do with her status as a star/not-star or whore/not-whore. She could be a Ballchinian for all I care about her music or personality. The point is, she (or someone ghosting for her, perhaps more likely) wrote an extended piece that follows the money for a typical band's CD release and illustrates how the industry screws all the artists except the ones who are such megastars as to be able to force their way out of the screwing factory. The real pirates are the RIAA and her article gives the substance to that assertion. You don't have to like her or her music to "get" that, unless you're the kind of idiot who assumes "people I don't like" == "people who never say anything interesting or impactful".
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
I was afraid someone would ask that. Let's see how I can back this up...
There is a war of sorts between Hollywood and the computer industry. Hollywood would want to ultimately ban the general purpose computer, or at least cripple it with DRM and draconian criminalization.
This would make computers less useful for consumers than they could be, and fewer computers would be sold. This is obviously bad for the hardware industry.
You're right that the software industry is in a sort of inbetween position. But the bigger SV companies are mostly hardware. Intel, AMD, Applied Materials, Apple and Sun are all much bigger than Adobe. Oracle is software, but isn't much in the pirated space.
And note that she is in no way suggesting repealing DMCA, just amending it with some media fair use rights. It's not clear to me that they would even apply to software.
Then again, perhaps I am a bit too cynical. The large voter population of clued in computer nerds may play a role as well.
Just like stopping people from breaking into homes and walking away with VCR's or stopping people from hiring hookers, or buying drugs, or jaywalking...
It requires watching for infringement and punishing that infringement when it occurs. Anything less would be uncivilized.
If you're worried about the feds knocking your door down for piracy, you probably won't be advertising your warez FTP server on IRC channels... Further, if you're worried about getting hit with a $2000 fine, you probably won't be surfing usenet for the latest game releases...
3: Allow total restriction for the duration of the copyright term including any DRM and overriding first sale.
I think it's important to be very careful here. 28 years is still a pretty long while to live in a "pay per view" world. Especially considering I've never touched anything on the "pay per view" model and never will. Where does that leave me for anything under 28 years old?
Reducing copyright terms would perhaps work for a while, but how can we gaurantee that someone won't just try to jack them up again? Further, once that 28 years becomes up, how can we be sure that the law hasn't been changed to rescind our ability to aquire the available works?
Bottom line. I have an idea of what's fair in copyright and it is everything you said with policing of the copyright as it stood pre-DMCA rather than any DRM at all. Perhaps I'll think about swaying from this hard-line when there's a meaningful compromise on the table.
In my experience, it's usually better to take incremental improvements rather than insist on perfection or nothing. The "perfection or nothing" attitude usually results in nothing. Congresswoman Lofgren's bill is way better than what we have now. Like everything, this bill can be improved, and by participating in the process, we can help implement those improvements. But if we walk away from the table, we lose all influence in the process.
Many posters also seem to assume that they have little or no practical influence. In my experience, that is quite untrue. It's the small actions you take every day that make the difference. Do something every day to support freedom on the Internet. Make it a habit. Do it even if it's only sending a single email. Put it in your calendar so that you are reminded every day to do one thing, no matter how small, to support freedom on the Internet. Many days, you will do a great deal to support the cause. Every day, you will do at least a little something. By spending five minutes a day supporting something you care about, you can multiply your influence by a factor of at least 365, more as you gradually learn which actions are the most effective.
Give it a try for a couple months. Once you get used to it, it's easy, quick and pleasant. Focus on creating the right causes, and the effects will take care of themselves. Do the right thing without worrying about the eventual outcome, or how much progress you're making. It's like walking to a far-away city: put one foot in front of the other, and sooner or later you'll wake up and see the city gates in the distance.
Allthough I do admit that there truly is more than enough occasions for Non-US Westerners to be startled by the breathtakingly common misseducation of US citizens (just the other day I talkend to a woman who visited NYC ... my gosh, those stories...), I usally don't fall into the all-out no-holds barred US bashing that sometimes becomes a sport amongst some European intellectuals. That's not so much due to being a former US citizen myself rather than believing in a general existence of common sense throughout hummanity.
The DMCA was 10 steps forward into cyberpunk facisim, there was no doubt that one or two or three would have to be taken back. Let's hope Europe get's the drift and we don't end up having a more insane DMCA than the US....
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Recverse engineering provisions.
If I can do it with my truck, I should ber able to do it with my software.
Yeah - $2000, if I read the site correctly. That's the same as from the American Society of Anesthesiologists, and you're surely not suggesting she's part of some plot to chloroform the country :)
She may be in thrall to special interests (though not on that evidence) but then again, she may actually believe in the good stuff like pushing back the DMCA and so forth. As you sugested elsewhere, having one of the most technologically informed electorates in the country may help too... (After all, I can't think of anywhere else where a stand-up comic could make jokes about Avogadro's number!)
Politicians are people too, and there are some honest people around. Some of them may even be in politics!
-- P.
Say no to feeping creaturism
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
You can't polish a turd.
The San Jose companies hate Microsoft. It's
like a Detroit representative taking bribes
from Toyota. She's not human; she's a
former immigration lawyer. Her agenda is to
create more work for her lawyer buddies.
She's the engineer of the massive, unfair
expansion in H1-B programs. What a chump!
Dump her! Vote for anybody else in the
Democratic primary and vote for the Green
or Independent or Republican in the general election.
I want more for less, because for some while now, and for too many things I can't choose to live without, I've been paying more to get less.
"Everything is smaller, more expensive, and not as good as it used to be." -- Andy Rooney
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
When congress realizes, that they aren't going to go around arresting millions of people for laws that they passed and when p2p's that offer anonymity are functional, thereby making void the law on the books, then you get a few members on the hill throwing the public(dogs) a bone.
Can't anyone see that the system is backwards? Shouldn't they care for the dogs first, since they are the ones that rule the marketplace anyway. If the wannabe owners of the dogs keep kicking em' daily, oneday the wannabe master will come up to the dog with a bone and the dog will take the bone, spit it out, and attack the wannabe owners.
...snailmail is not a good idea. Faxes, phone calls and email are the only things that are getting through to congresspersons/senators now.
Too bad my congresscritter is Howard Berman. [sigh]
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
And the reason we talk about it all the time is that these two desirable things can't be reconciled without ever-greater levels of technological evil stuff materializing (Paladium, anyone?). Give me the technological ability to have my fair use rights, and I've also got the technological ability to pirate.
The world is messy.
Hmm. We will also always have the "technical ability" to violence or fraud... the solution is not to make it *impossible*, but making it illegal and trying how to figure out good ways to prevent, detect and punish it. The world is "messy", yeah, but I prefer some messiness on the fringes to total control.
It's been screwy ever since moderation notices went to digest form (which personally I hate). Sometimes they don't arrive at all, and NEVER in a timely manner. Reply notices have slowed way down too.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I wonder if we can get a report of the articles with the most points used to moderate them (up or down.)
"Most controversial"?
Representative (foo_name);
h ts.htm)
I am writing to you today to express my opinions as a constituent of the (foo_nominal) District of (foo_state).
I ask you to support Representative Zoe Lofgren (CA, 16th District) and her bill, H.R. 1066, also called The Balance Act of 2003. (also found at http://www.house.gov/lofgren/congress/digital_rig
Although the congresswoman provides exceptional description and reason of and for the necessity of the bill, I will briefly summarize my feelings on the matter.
Currently, all entertainment media is available in two formats: analog and digital. Analog is the traditional method of storing information using a mechanical medium; books, maps, audio and video cassette tapes, and vinyl records are all examples of analog media. The other format, digital, stores information electronically rather than mechanically; cds, dvds, computer programs, optical tapes and many more technologies to come are and will be digital media.
Most all legislation dealing with copyright, intellectual property, and fair use are in regard to the analog format.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, coupled with dubious corporate policies, has created a disparity between analog and digital formats in regards to their rights under law and concepts of fair use. The Balance Act of 2003 seeks to rebalance these media.
Allow me to exemplify the problem.
Imagine you have purchased a book from your local bookstore or anywhere in the world. Under law, you are the owner of that book. You have the right to read it, as much and as often as you like. The publisher cannot take it away from you. You can read it anywhere you like. You can read it under any kind of light. You can photocopy pictures in that book. You can make a dust cover for the book to protect your library. You can sell it at a rummage sale or even give that book to a friend for his birthday. These are all rights protected under Fair Use.
Now imagine you want to purchase a film on dvd. Well, technically you cannot purchase a copy of a film. You purchase the physical disc and a very limited license allowing you to view the film on the dvd. You are forced to purchase dvds specifically marketed for your region. You do not own a copy of the film. The license allowing you to view the film can be rescinded at any time by the publisher, making it illegal to watch the film. You can be limited in how much you watch the film; you may only be allowed ten viewings for instance. You can only play the dvd in a dvd player made or allowed by the publisher of your dvd. You cannot make back ups to protect your film collection from scratching. You cannot sell it at a garage sale, give it to a friend, or even buy it for someone as a birthday gift. All these actions are also illegal.
The effects of the DMCA are more far reaching than simply cds and dvds. If you own a vcr, you have the right to record a sporting event on tape and enjoy it at future watchings. If you own a cassette recorder, you are allowed to record your radio program. You have paid for these analog transmissions by listening and watching the commercials that accompany them. You may record them and enjoy them later under Fair Use.
Once digital television or digital radio become a standard, even these actions will become illegal because digital transmissions do not enjoy the same concepts of Fair Use that analog transmissions do.
The Balance Act will ensure that digital intellectual property owners enjoy the same rights that analog intellectual property owners do.
I encourage you to support Representative Zoe Lofgren and H.R. 1066, the Balance Act of 2003.
In sincerest regards,
(foo_sig)
A check made out to the guy with lots of zeroes in the Amount field.
Dyolf Knip
Dipshit.
I wouldn't trust a damn thing a lawyer says to support. The fact is, as long as there is copy-controls, it makes for a bad digital future; any legislation that has the title "fair use" shouldn't include "copy-controls" as a requirement!
This is a battle, where there can be absolutely NO COMPROMISE!
Kinda funny that the woman introducing a bill to greatly restrict the power of the DMCA was named "Cyber Champion" by the BSA...three cheers for biting the hand that feeds you!
Cue The Sun...
OK, Quake 4 is released as open-source and sold in a series of "Server Editions" starting at $500, which include numerous huge, impressive-looking manuals, a diploma reading "Certified Quake Server Admin" and a plush llama.
Makes sense to me.
--
est modus in rebus
> So I'm Asking Slashdot : What should companies be doing to prevent the loss of income from pirating while
> leaving inviolate the right of the consumer to make copies of materials to which we own legal license?
They should sell their stuff for less. The cost to actually produce a single copy of Thief 2 is practically nothing (that's why people will give it out for free on the net); if everyone you knew was willing to download a copy from a shady IRC bot, wouldn't they perhaps also be willing to pay $5 to download the whole thing, legitimately, from a reliable server?
The problem is that the music industry, which makes it's money through the distribution of music, is trying to capitalize on a process, the cost of which as a result of technology, the Internet, and digitization, is next to nothing.
It costs next to nothing to send an entire album to everyone in the world, yet they want to charge $18 per CD, and still limit your rights to distribution.
What nonsense.
The only people who I feel for are the artists, NOT the industry. The artists should be compensated fairly, but, due to the ease of distribution, can now only guarantee significant returns by public performances.
But this, in my opinion, is still fair enough.
The distribution of music, specifically, is cheap, and not worth the price and the ridiculous restraints that are placed on the consumer by the RIAA. The RIAA knows that the only way they can protect and get away with the ridiculous system they impose on us is to use the law. They are also well aware that any law that gives them the upper hand will violate the liberties of the consumer.
Fact is, they couldn't give a shit about the rights of the consumer. By their reasoning, to hell with consumer rights, fair use, and the free market. All that matters to them is $$$, the only object they worship, by hook or by crook, NOT the rights of some Joe Shmoe in Idaho to share his music with his friends.
But our liberty is something worth fighting to the end. It's time we fought the ridiculous restrictions placed upon us by distribution licenses today. And there are indeed legitimate uses of P2P services like Kazaa, but of course they don't give a shit. The resolve of the RIAA goes as far as seeking to violate our rights to privacy and freedom, and this is where they must be stopped.
Sure, the cost to produce the second copy of Thief 2 is only a few cents. The first one cost them several hundred thousand dollars. Do you seriously believe that it costs a studio the same amount to create and distribute a game as it costs Joe Hacker to distribute it over the 'net? Get real.
~SL
Meaningful posts modded down... all incentive to contribute fading... fading...
~SL
I'm talking about the difference between selling 10,000 copies and 1,000,000 copies -- the reproduction costs that separate the two are almost insignificant. Given that, and supposing that all of the people who downloaded illegal copies would be willing to pay a small amount for a legit and clean version, they might stand to make more money by lowering the cost of their product.
The difference between selling ten thousand and a million copies is indeed significant. The thing is, we live in a capitalist society. That's the basic problem I have with this whole line of reasoning. As a society, we have decided that a person who provides a service or a good to society should be recompensated for their time with the ability to then gain the results of others' labors. We call the system by which we keep track of this 'money'. If someone creates a great game, it's only because they've spent years of their life learning how. It's right that they should be rewarded. Hating big corporations is just another religion; you do it because it feels right. Try and keep in mind, however, that the people behind those corporations deserve to be rewarded for their time, and they have the right to charge whatever they want for that time. If you don't like what they're charging, fine, don't give them your hard earned money, take it to a competitor. Instead of turning pirate and justifying it by saying that anyone who overcharges deserves to be robbed, download shareware, freeware, and open-source games to your heart's content.
So many people around here follow a philosophy that, taken to its logical ends, would have you breaking into Fred Meyer and simply stealing anything you considered to be over-priced. Get over yourselves and your sense of communal self-justification.
~SL
What are you talking about? I am not trying to justify piracy (that's a different argument), I'm trying to answer your question of what companies can do to make money off their games.
What I'm saying is, if companies want to make more money off games today, and piracy is a reality (it is), they might try charging less money for the games. Marginal cost is extremely low, demand is high (as you say), so prices should be low -- especially when the "competitors" (warez kids) offer a similar product for a low price. This is capitalism.
If you can make a good economic argument that says that a profit-maximising company in a world with piracy should be charging $60 for a new game, I'd love to hear it. Right now, your post is just as emotionally irrational as you imagine mine to be.
My main problem with your argument here is your continuing insistance on calling people who steal and then give away for free other people's property 'competition'. That's patently rediculous.
~SL
First of all, this is not a continuing "insistance" (sic). My last post was the first time I called them competition.
Now, pirates are certainly competition for game publishers if we take an economic viewpoint. The point is not to justify or legitimize piracy, but to characterize it in a rational way so that we can analyze how game publishers can react. It's easy to just talk about this in terms of costs. Pirates are able to produce the product at very low cost; they pay only their own opportunity cost (usually low for high school kids) and the potential cost of going to jail or losing their internet connection (typically very small). On the other hand, their product is not worth quite as much -- it's not "legitimate" (this may mean a lot to folks like yourself) and isn't benefiting the creators of the game, carries increased risk of viruses, might be hard to find, and also carries a small potential cost of paying a fine or losing the buyer's internet connection.
Game publishers are also able to produce the product for low (marginal) cost, but can provide something of higher value, since it is legitimate, virus free, comes with support, and can be found in a reliable place. This gives them an advantage that they can use to charge more than pirates can.
The question is: how do you quantify these costs, and then determine a dollar price that maximizes their profits? I'm not in a good position to actually measure this stuff, but I'd be willing to bet that their profits are best when the price is quite low, and I think I've argued in previous posts why I think this.
Why is this "rediculous" (sic)? This is perfectly rational economics. What is your proposal, to just wish away piracy?
That's not a bad idea... let's all clap our hands at the same time and see what happens. Ready?
~SL
I don't understand your point. Do you have one?