FBI Arrests Eight On Copyright Charges

luigi6699 writes "The BBC reports that 'the US authorities have charged eight people in connection with the illegal trading of copyrighted films, music, games and software over the net.' According to Acting Assistant Attorney General John C Richter, 'cases like these are part of the Justice Department's coordinated strategy to protect copyright owners from the online thieves who steal and then sell the products they work so hard to produce.'"

Comments

Priorities!

[Capt'n Hector]

If tomorrow there is a terrorist attack that the FBI failed to prevent because they were busy arresting some copyright violator, I'm going to be mighty pissed.

Re:Priorities!

[mboverload]

But they protected the most important thing of all, the profits of media conglomerates.

Re:Priorities!

[Antony-Kyre]

I think they consider that, and probably spike our taxes so they can hire more and more FBI agents and such. 'Gotta get them all' so-to-speak.

I think there are two main issues. People who freely share copyrighted material, and people who SELL copyrighted material. Personally, I see the latter as being flagrant theft.

Re:Priorities!

[Xugumad]

Every time this happens, someone says "What, have they caught all the terrorists?". Believe it or not, the ideal method of law enforcement is not to deal with one type of crime at a time...

"Theft? Err, no, we're still working through all the murders, try again in a few months"

Seriously here people, you may think the copyright holders are big evil faceless corps, but that doesn't make copying their material right. If you object to the companies, don't play their games, listen to their music, watch their videos. Yeah, sure, it'll be tough, you'll miss this stuff, but that's what making a stand is all about.

As it is, I'm fed up of this general attitude of "The company is evil, so I'm going to copy their stuff illegally, that'll teach them!". No, all it does it give them support to the idea they need stronger laws to deal with copyright infringers.

Consumer

[mboverload]

Glad to see our government is looking out for the consumer.

Arresting teens for committing the hideous crime of downloading music and stopping monopolies right in their tracks.

Ok, maybe not the second part, but 1/2 isn't that bad.

Why is this under "Your rights online"?

[kronocide]

Think what you will about it, but recieving a free copy of something someone else has invested time and money to produce is not a "right."

Re:Why is this under "Your rights online"?

[joebutton]

Think what you will about it, but recieving a free copy of something someone else has invested time and money to produce is not a "right."

The whole concept of rights a bit nebulous. Having a "right" to something could mean

a) Being permitted to do something

or b) Being entitled to something

You are confusing the two meanings. The general guiding principal is that you should be permitted to do anything that does't impact on anyone else's "rights". If two set of rights come into conflict things get more complicated and a balance has to be struck.

This story is about whether the balance of rights is struck in favour of the consumer or the copyright holder. Unless you produce more copyrighted material than you consume, this is a story about your rights being negatively impacted by the FBI upholding the copyright holders'.

Re:Why is this under "Your rights online"?

[mOdQuArK!]

but recieving a free copy of something someone else has invested time and money to produce is not a "right."

Doing what you want with your own private property, including making copies of it available for other people, _IS_ a right. That's why they call them "private property rights". "Intellectual property laws" put restrictions on everyone's normal private property rights, supposedly to encourage innovation in the society (although all the anecdotes I've seen lately seem to indicate that they're used primarily to retard innovation).

If a carpenter spent a lot of time and money creating a fancy piece of furniture, and sold it to someone else, they wouldn't expect to be able to control how that buyer (or any future buyers) used that piece of furniture. How does it provide a net benefit to society to allow "intellectual property" owners that kind of control over other peoples' private property rights?

Re:Why is this under "Your rights online"?

[TheoMurpse]

Your analogy is flawed. If you want an accurate one,
A carpenter makes a chair and sells it to A. A sells it to B. OK.

A musician makes a CD and sells it to A. A sells the CD to B. OK.

Contrast this with

A musician makes a CD and sells it to A. A makes a copy and sells it to B. Infringement.

A carpenter makes a chair and sells it to A. A makes a copy of the chair through some sort of future "copying machine". Infringement? It will be interesting to see what happens with intellectual property when we have machines that can make identical copies of everything we possess.

I wonder

[mocm]

how someone can be an Acting Assistant Attorney General and not know the difference between theft and copyright infringement.

Re:I wonder

[mboverload]

The RIAA offered to take up his propagand...er...I mean, speech writing department.

Re:I wonder

[phobos13013]

I LIKE this logic!
Now if we could only get Bush to misrepresent the truth in only the way he can under grand jury proceedings about say weapons of mass destruction in Iraq... we could arrest him for LYING UNDER OATH by the Figure of Speech conversion.

Re:I wonder

[Uber Banker]

To copy and share copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright holder is copyright infringement. To sell copy and sell copyrighted materials in a market/environment where legal copies are also for sale is theft of a revenue stream. TFA refers to organised criminals conducting not only copyright infringement, but theft of revenue. These were not nice people benevolently running a backwater torrent site, they were copying and selling copyrighted materials.

Yes theft is an often misused concept in regards to copyright infringement, but in this case it wasn't.

Does this really solve the problem

[theamazingflyingshee]

Well think about this, if they are taken to court or pay an out of court settlement then they might not have enough money to feed them selves (etc.) as they might me heavily i debt(etc.), so then they might turn to crime as means of income. There must be a better way.

Re:Article is kinda skimpy on details

[mboverload]

Try RIAA/MPAA.com.

You didn't hear? Yeah, they run the government now.

Selling or Trading?

[Anonymous Coward]

The article says that they were trading copyright material, but the Assistant Attorney General says that they were selling it... so which one is it?

Makes me sick

[QuantumG]

I never thought I'd ever live in a time where something that is so clearly a civil issue would be come a criminal charge. What's next, arresting people for slander or violating a contract?

Re:Makes me sick

[Saeger]

Since the U.S. doesn't actually manufacture anything tangible anymore, "intellectual property" then becomes all the more important for maintaining control in a capitalistic economy still based on scarcity. Copyright infringement, then, is "economic terrorism" and a threat to national security.

Re:Makes me sick

[Ingolfke]

Since the U.S. doesn't actually manufacture anything tangible anymore

Not true. Ford, GM, and many other manufacturing corporation. What is true is that a large part of the U.S. economy is a service economy and also is based on revenues from Intellectual Property. So for the U.S. there is a real value in ensuring that each copy of a product is purchased.

"intellectual property" then becomes all the more important for maintaining control in a capitalistic economy still based on scarcity.

As before, "all" is wrong. IP revnues are important, because if the U.S. lost major corporations that created IP hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens would be unemployed. Including those that made the IP, worked for the companies that distributed the IP, all the supporting companies (legal, healthcare, etc.).

Scarcity isn't part of a capitalistic system, it's a general state of things. There are only some many of any one thing to go around. Capitalism is the best method for allocating scarce resources.

Copyright infringement, then, is "economic terrorism" and a threat to national security.

Now you're just rambling and exagerating. Organized and major copyright infringement should be stopped. But it's not "economic terrorism" and anyone who tries to use that type of wording in any legitimate way is spouting off non-sensical rhetoric.

Re:Makes me sick

[shutdown -p now]

There are only some many of any one thing to go around. Capitalism is the best method for allocating scarce resources.

Except that IP is, by definition, not a scarce resource. It can be indefinitely reproduced at almost no cost. Capitalism is indeed good at allocating scarce resources, but fails miserably when the scarcity disappears. IP laws are what create (well... try to) the artificial scarcity so that capitalism can continue to work.

Not to mention people's identities and pedophiles

[Travoltus]

There are tons of identity thieves and pedophiles out there that the FBI hasn't gotten around to nailing, either.

Priorities? We're the FBI, we don't need no steeeeeeeenkin priorities!!!

Re:Osama who?

[phobos13013]

Dont you GET IT man?! If we put going after and arresting the terrorists over propping up American Corporate culture... THEY WIN!!!!!!

The question now is... who are THEY?!?!!!

Where is my local FBI office?

[speights_pride!]

Oh that's right, I don't live in America. I wonder if these other countries will actually extradite people to the US? I doubt theyt would in New Zealand as copyright infringement isn't a serious enough crime and imagine the outrage if you got 30 years jail in the US, when convicted killers often get away with 10 years here.

Shoplifting VS Copyright Infringement

[Anonymous Coward]

One actually deprives people of something that they possesed, the other doesn't. Yet which is more heavily punished? It's just crazy.

I had an arguement about copying vs sharing, the guy was saying that copying software isn't the same as sharing, he said if you gave away your copy to the person then that would be sharing. I guess that he also thinks that someone writting down a copy of a recipe for a friend isn't sharing either.

There are many methods that could be used for allowing artists to make money and allowing people to share. One such way that I've thought could be good is for the artists to just with-hold new albums, and saying they need $X amount and once that is reached they will release it for everyone to share. I'm sure that they fans would quickly fund the artist, this way the artist would get money for their art (instead of the big labels soaking it up and dripping a little down to the artists) and more people would have access to the music. The only people that don't like this seem to be those that think 'why should I give money away and then people who haven't get to download the music/movie for free'.

Re:Shoplifting VS Copyright Infringement

[Ingolfke]

One such way that I've thought could be good is for the artists to just with-hold new albums, and saying they need $X amount and once that is reached they will release it for everyone to share. I'm sure that they fans would quickly fund the artist, this way the artist would get money for their art

Stupid blind consumers will buy a product sight unseen. I read reviews, try to find legal samples on the Internet, maybe here it on the radio, ask friends or people w/ similar musical tastes about the band. I would never pay in advance for disc that wasn't actually even recorded yet. You've probably already plunked down $50 for Duke Nukem Forever. Even the best artists produce crap sometimes, or at least music many people will not like. And what incentive would they have to make a really great disc?

why should I give money away and then people who haven't get to download the music/movie for free

No, many of the people who don't like your idea realize it would never work.

Murderers...

[John Seminal]

If tomorrow there is a terrorist attack that the FBI failed to prevent because they were busy arresting some copyright violator, I'm going to be mighty pissed.

#1) Sometimes a highly visable arrest is enough to deter people from an activity, without allocating many law officers. All the FBI has to do is make an example of one person, charge him with everything, throw the kitchen sink at the guy and make sure he never gets outside of a jail, and that might stop other people from doing the same act.

#2) Follow the money. There would be no FBI without money, and they get their money from congress. Members of congress get elected, and that takes lots of money. I can't give/donate nearly as much money as organized groups like the RIAA, so members of congress won't listen to me. If the RIAA wants music file sharers chased, arrested and prosecuted, and members of congress want money for the next election, guess what the FBI will be doing?

#3) Perhaps terrorists are not a high priority because the politicians in power have been able to take advantage of the attacks. Whenever there is an attack, the people collectivly lose more rights. Police put up camera's in cities to videotape everyone (chicago and boston both have over 3,000 each). Libraries require fingerprints (Naperville). Gas prices soar. Companies like Halliburton get rich. I also noticed a direct relationship between acts of terror and rednecks getting very patriotic, which means they vote republican. For some reason, people in the south think democrats are pussies because we want to understand a problem before shooting at it.

I would also add the uber rich are not scared of terrorism because when was the last time a suicide bomber blew himself up in Beverly Hills? The terrorists target public trains and busses which the avarage joe takes to work. The rich live in gated communities, they have private security in addition to the police. And when the rich call the police, the police know to anwser quickly and with their best officers. The last thing the police departments want is a millionaire with lawyers pissed off at them.

Re:Murderers...

[Antony-Kyre]

About number three, no kidding on the millionare with lawyers angry at the police department. But the police should keep in mind that if they do something to a poor person, and if that person either wins the lottery or gets motivated enough to work and save, they'll be in trouble then.

I don't like the concept of requiring fingerprints unless someone is convicted of a crime. People not convicted of their first offense ever should have their fingerprint copy destroyed. What if someone has no fingerprints for whatever reason?

About cameras in cities, if the voters approved it, then that's okay. But it needs to be voter approved and temporary. Perhaps require it to be reapproved every 4 years during the mayoral election.
-
Personally I think they should never be lively monitored. Just review the tapes when necessary. Delete footage after 30 days. But still require voter approval every 4 years.

About the terrorist attacks, namely September 11th, let us think about that for a second. What was Osama bin Laden's reason for attacking, if he truly did that? And who had more to gain? Bush being able to sign into law stripping out rights? Or Osama bin Laden's reason?

By the way, not all Republicans are bad, and not all Democrats are good. Both do good things, and both do bad things. But more often than not in our federal Congress we see them voting for stupid things, Democrats and Republicans alike. I think one Senate vote ended up having it 100-0 for something bad.

Re:Murderers...

[ScentCone]

Sometimes a highly visable arrest is enough to deter people from an activity

Some. Not terrorists, typically. For that, you have to just plain remove them, their backers/resources, and try to deal with the underlying culture clash that fuels them. People who are too cheap to pay for movies, on the other hand, already know all of the ground rules, and are just assuming that they won't get caught. It's not like they don't know they're no better than a standard shoplifter, they just figure that since there are millions of them they have a shot at continuing to enjoy the work of their favorite band without actually paying what the band asks. The people who facilitate that on a large scale are truly low hanging fruit for law enforcement, though - they can't really get the stuff they pirate into a lot of their buddies' hands without, by definition, exposing what they're doing. That little bit of deliberate, very public nose-thumbing is pretty much asking for it.

much money as organized groups like the RIAA, so members of congress won't listen to me

So why are you not forming the National Pirate's Association? Groups of teachers, gun owners, auto workers, environmentalists... they all form large groups and leverage that so that they can make a bunch of noise and fund campaigns. What do you think MoveOn.org is? It's rich people backing Democrats with millions and millions of dollars. Poor people can throw in a dollar, too, and say they think the same thing. Do you really think that the trial lawyer associations, the NEA, and other extremely well funded left-of-center groups don't have every bit of an audience in political circles as a particular trade association in the entertainment biz? Spend a little more time on K Street in DC - the noise from the well funded left is very, very loud. The problem is that it doesn't resonate with most voters because all it ever is is against things, and not constructive. That's getting pretty old.

Perhaps terrorists are not a high priority because the politicians in power have been able to take advantage of the attacks.

Not a high priority? How do you figure? We've got an unprecedented number of people working on the intel, interdiction, and counter-terrorism side of things. We're in the middle of re-building a seriously gutted intel capacity that suffered for years under enormous budget cuts. It takes time to hire, train, and embed the sort of people needed to head this stuff off at the source. Until then, we're treating the symptom, not the problem. But that doesn't mean that other crime should just be ignored.

Gas prices soar.

Because no one will tolerate the building of domestic refining capacity. We haven't added refineries since the 1970's, even as the population using the fuel has grown hugely. But that's only part of the picture - the main component is demand pressure because of hugely growing markets in China and India. There are simply more people trying to buy the same gallons of gas. So, if your personal favorite politicians were in office, how would you reduce the competition for oil? Would you drill for more? Build new refineries (in which state/city - have fun getting approval!)? Subsidize fuel with tax dollars? The point is, you toss gas prices into the conversation as if your distaste for the FBI busting flagrant copyright violators is all part of giant tinfoil hat conspiracy that also includes somehow fooling the Chinese into using more oil so that we have to bid up our purchases from suppliers.

I would also add the uber rich are not scared of terrorism because when was the last time a suicide bomber blew himself up in Beverly Hills?

Who do you think had their offices in the top floors of the World Trade Center, a bunch of living-on-Velveeta 20-year-olds starting up a lost cause web site? No, it was bankers, traders, law firms, accounting firms - "rich" people. Who do you think lost a fortune when those attacks clobbered the econom

Re:Murderers...

[dhasenan]

But the police should keep in mind that if they do something to a poor person, and if that person either wins the lottery or gets motivated enough to work and save, they'll be in trouble then.

Bah, that takes too much effort. It wouldn't happen often at all--maybe once every five years at the inside. The poor person in question would have to win the lottery or something similar (saving money and working doesn't cut it, and county/state/federal law enforcement officers don't generally harass college students in my experience, so that way's out); they'd have to remember the officer's name; they'd have to be the sort to hold grudges and vendettas; and the whole deal would have to transpire within the statute of limitations.

About cameras in cities, if the voters approved it, then that's okay. But it needs to be voter approved and temporary. Perhaps require it to be reapproved every 4 years during the mayoral election.

I strongly disagree with that. I want an electorate that will defend my rights even more than I will.

What was Osama bin Laden's reason for attacking, if he truly did that? And who had more to gain? Bush being able to sign into law stripping out rights? Or Osama bin Laden's reason?

Osama bin Laden would have benefitted greatly from those attacks. Think about it--he was fighting a nation that didn't want to actively and openly confront him. By attacking that nation, he could force a fair and open confrontation; once that was given, international coalitions against the US could be formed.
The trouble was, none of the Arab nations were willing to go against the US. Had bin Laden's plan worked, no doubt, every Muslim and Arab nation from Morocco to Lebanon to Iran would have joined together to fight the US as soon as the latter set foot on Arab soil.

I think one Senate vote ended up having it 100-0 for something bad.

Get farking references. The incident in question was an appropriations bill for the war in Iraq--voting against it would be political suicide. There was a rider on that bill in the form of the REAL ID Act.
But there's little difference between Republicans and Democrats these days. It's mainly a question of who to tax more and how much to spend on public services (health care, welfare, etc).

Re:Murderers...

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

But the police should keep in mind that if they do something to a poor person, and if that person either wins the lottery or gets motivated enough to work and save, they'll be in trouble then.

It takes more than cash to be rich. You spend years making connections and earning favors. As a newly won lottery magnate, you wouldn't even have access to the best lawyers. The police have nothing to fear from a family that's been rich less than 40 years.

By the way, not all Republicans are bad, and not all Democrats are good. Both do good things, and both do bad things.

Wrong. Both do bad things, all the time, never good. They've not passed any necessary legislation in decades, their only real work at this point would be the budget... and they've screwed that up to. If you have any sense left at all, you'll promise not to vote for either, ever again.

Re:Murderers...

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

No, I didn't misread. Your suggestion that there is a good republican somewhere, that's what I'm disputing. They're all rotten to the core, along with every single democrat.

We need a Constitutional Ammendment barring people affiliated with either party from ever holding public office again...

Re:Murderers...

[NickFortune]

I think most Democrats and Republicans in Congress are essentially the same side, except for minor differences.

I think they are exactly the same party; two different flavours of Corporate Greed, each with its own brandname to create the illusion of choice. The biggest challenge of the election is finding enough highly emotive non-issues to distract the electorate.

It'd be pitiful, if it wasn't for the fact that it seems to work...

The article says...

[Neticulous]

that sweden was one of the countries involved, does this mean swedish law is changing? Will we soon see the ever popular piratebay being closed down? I know they have always taunted in their legal threats section about how swedish law keeps them running. Curious to know how far the grasp of the DoJ reaches on this.

Nobody owns anything anymore...

[John Seminal]

Everything is becoming rented and licensed.

Think what you will about it, but recieving a free copy of something someone else has invested time and money to produce is not a "right."

The problem with the system is I can't own a damn thing anymore. There was a time if I wanted to tape something off TV, I would have used a VCR. Now people are paying a monthly fee for TiVo. 20 years ago, people could buy a satelite dish and get all the channels for free on C-band. And back then cable was fairly inexpensive. Today, a "basic" subscription to cable can cost over $60 a month. AND back then there were not as many commericals on television as today. What has changed? Did these companies hire specialists to determine just how much bullshit people can take before they break?

And it is not good enough to have a phone in the house, now everyone needs a cell phone. I had one employer ask me to update my file with my second phone number, a cell phone number. I did not have one. My boss gave me one hell of a look.

And take operating systems for example. There was a time that when I purchased a operating system, I could put it on any computer I owned. Now Microsoft wants me to call in and ask for permission to install Windows.

Every buisness is figuring ways to not sell a product, but to sell a reoccuring service. One day, people won't be able to buy underwear, they will have to buy a license from fruit of the loom. Perhaps washing machines will need to call fruit of the loom before you can wash underwear.

And the music industry and movie industry is doing the same thing. It is not bad enough that they want $10 to see a movie, after half an hour of commericals (what is the point of paying $10 if they will force people to watch commercials anyways, isn't that just like TV?). In addition to the $10 ticket and forced viewing of commercials, the theater has a monopoly on snacks, and they use that monopoly to charge $5 for a soda that probably costs them a thin dime. One year later, the movie gets released on DVD for $29.99. The movie quality is so-so. Three years later a nicer version comes out for $29.99.

And If I want to back up my copy, in case it gets scratched so I have a working copy, the movie industry won't let me. They shut down DVD Decryptor.

And about the music industry. Remember, they kept prices inflated to over $15 a CD. They were sued and they lost. They were ordered to give free CD's to libraries and what did they do? 100 different CD's that would be interesting? NO. They gave 100 identical copies of Christmas songs.

So, no, sharing is not theft. What is theft is what the corporations are doing to people.

Re:Nobody owns anything anymore...

[msormune]

No one is forcing you to rent anything. No one is forcing you to watch TV. No one is forcing you to buy a cell phone. No one is forcing you to buy anything. But if you do, you must pay. Is this too complicated? Always remember it is not the sucker who sells, but who buys.

Re:Nobody owns anything anymore...

[kcbrown]

But this is all happening in a supposedly competitive market. Where are the alternatives? The different forms of the same products?

Paying for a product or service is one thing. Being artificially constrained in the choices available because of collusion within the industry (which this most surely is) is another thing entirely. We are being forced to deal with the latter, and have no power to change it. Refusing to buy isn't sufficient in the face of a tightly controlled market. The whole point of a competitive market is to provide customers with choices and to keep the price of those choices affordable. For most of the things the grandparent article talks about, choices do not exist (where, for instance, are the movie theaters that do not show commercials prior to showing the same main features that the other theaters are showing?).

Re:Operation FastLink

[01000011011101000111]

Ah, but the child porn they were distributing had been released by the FBI as part of an entrapment plan - therefore the feds had the copyrights to it... And the FBI know full well they stand a better chance of getting you to serve a long term with Copyright breach charges than with child porno charges :( (Note: This is intended as a joke... not too sure if it isn't true tho :'( )

Worked so hard?

[Icicle509]

"......online thieves who steal and then sell the products they work so hard to produce......'" Im sure they work REAL hard, maybe 1% as hard as the average blue collar american? and they make more a minute than I make an hour..... Sorry guys, Not only do I think your grossly overpaid, I have a hard time swallowing calling what you do "Hard work"

Re:Worked so hard?

[cliffski]

you are saying people in the movie industry do not work hard?
Im not saying Tom Cruise works as hard as a coal miner, but is that true for everyone whose income depends on that industry?
the cameramen? lighting guys? set dressers? continuity staff? scriptwriters? set designers? the catering crew? the security guys at the studio? the artists? CG guys?
You think everyone who works in entertainment works less than 1% as hard as everyone outside entertainment?
Watch the DVD extras from Lord of The Rings, then tell me little effort went into that movie that you saw for $10.

Re:Why don't they go after GPL violators?

[Xugumad]

So far GPL violations tend to be sorted out amicably, with the company in question kicking the programmer who thought they could slip GPL code in, without anyone noticing, and either releasing the source code or fixing the problem...

why is this on here?

[EuphoricaL]

I'm wondering why this story is posted on slashdot. It's simply the FBI enforcing the law. Apart from it being nothing new it makes me instantly think that this is relavent because of the assumption that the majority of slashdot readers take part in illegal download activity. I understand that any interesting changes to copyright law in any country or a big new itunes-style movie store might be worthy news, but why this?

If there arrests...

[NoMercy]

These people were likely the old fassioned type of copyright theft, where you make money out of selling illegal copies, or producing good quality counterfiets and selling them to legitimate retail outlets as if they were the real thing.

They definately do need to be locked up, if I pay for software I at least expect it to be legit :)

Re:Its rights online, just not YOUR rights

[iamplasma]

But, you see (3) is NOT NEEDED or WANTED by either (1) or (2).... ....mmmm, that means RIAA / MPAA can fuck off so that customers won't be ripped off anymore (by price-fixing) and artists will receive MORE money (rather than the couple of quarters from each CD sold -- plus, they DON'T have to give the middlemen the MAJORITY of the hard-earned cash from CONCERTS).... .... hahaha MPAA / RIAA you SUCK!!!

Umm.. while you appear to have completely discredited yourself at the end there all on your own, I thought I may as well reply anyway. While people don't realise it, they do definitely want the middlemen, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, they provide the music in what is a more useful form (eg CDs), this is the one and only aspect which may be partially obsoleted by MP3s and P2P. Secondly, they see that the music is actually produced to the best quality possible, by helping provide recording and postproduction facilities. After all, music is more than just a guy in front of a microphone. Thirdly, they provide the commercial infrastructure to make sure music is paid for, and artists get paid. Fourthly, they find good (in the sense "popularly demanded", not necessarily "talented") musicians, preventing people having to wade through as much crap as they might. Fifthly, they help cultivate those particular musicians, by ensuring they continue to make music in the way people want. Lastly, and most obviously, they provide the marketing and advertising that commercial success requires. Of course, there's more than just those factors, but they'd be the main ones. Also, I'd love to know how you think the MPAA are anything like that, given that major films are produced and marketed by the same firms.

The point is, there's a lot more to mass music than a guy with a guitar and someone who wants to listen, and these "middlemen" provide all those things. Perhaps a good analogy would be stores, should you steal milk because supermarkets pay farmers a fraction of what they sell the milk for? After all, all we need is farmers and people to drink milk, how dare those supermarket assholes get in the way!

If you don't like the RIAA/MPAA, don't buy their stuff, but the fact that so many people do want their product, compared to buying music/movies online, is economically speaking plain proof that they do serve a huge role in the value of their products, otherwise the market would have eliminated them naturally long ago.

Re:What were you arrested for, kid?

[Nirvelli]

And creatin' a nuisance!

Re:Its rights online, just not YOUR rights

[paving-slab]

...they see that the music is actually produced to the best quality possible, by helping provide recording and postproduction facilities.

And what is to stop the musicians hiring people to do this, rather than these people hiring the musicians?

...they provide the commercial infrastructure to make sure music is paid for, and artists get paid.

This cold still happen if they worked for the musicians, instead of the musicians working for them.

...they find good (in the sense "popularly demanded", not necessarily "talented") musicians, preventing people having to wade through as much crap as they might.

Not "popularly demanded", just popular, there is a difference. "Preventing people having to wade through as much crap as they might" could be replaced with "Preventing people expiriencing as much diversity as they might"

...they help cultivate those particular musicians, by ensuring they continue to make music in the way people want.

Or, they cultivate their cash cow by ensuring the artists creativity is stifled.

...they provide the marketing and advertising that commercial success requires.

Which, again, they could do if they worked for the artists instead of the artists working for them.

...Perhaps a good analogy would be stores, should you steal milk because supermarkets pay farmers a fraction of what they sell the milk for? After all, all we need is farmers and people to drink milk, how dare those supermarket assholes get in the way!

I think the supermarkets are a good analogy. They should be more like supermarkets in the sense that supermarkets are competitive with each other, reducing prices. Heinz doesn't work for the supermarkets, but the supermarkets distribute and advertise their products even though you can buy them elsewhere. You can buy eggs from the supermarket, but you can also buy the eggs direct from the farm that supplies them, cheaper and fresher, if you want to. Supermarkets embrace new technology, you can buy stuff from the supermarket via the internet and have it delivered to your door. And it's the same product that you get from the shop, it hasn't been disabled in any way.

..the fact that so many people do want their product, compared to buying music/movies online, is economically speaking plain proof that they do serve a huge role in the value of their products, otherwise the market would have eliminated them naturally long ago.

This is false logic, if people want their product there is nowhere else to go, they've got it sown up.

Pedophiles and Satanists

[typical]

There are tons of identity thieves and pedophiles out there that the FBI hasn't gotten around to nailing, either.

What would the point of "nailing" pedophiles be?

You don't "nail" Satanists. Nothing wrong with being a Satanist. The problem comes in if some guy starts cutting human hearts out on an altar somewhere -- then you're nailing a murderer who happens to be a Satanist.

Similarly, you could maybe nail someone guilty of sexual abuse of a child who happened to be a pedophile, but what would be the benefit of nailing pedophiles?

Identity thieves, on the other hand, have committed a crime.

Rejecting 'entertainment'

[bradbury]

Over the last couple of years I have sold most of my CDs (several hundred), not gone to a movie and have lived in a world where I listen to a few CDs (the Ally McBeal soundtrack and the Neil Diamond Jonathan Livingston Seagull CD) on an ongoing basis.

Guess what? It doesn't significantly impact the self-perceived quality of my life to any extent.

That would suggest that *much* of the entertainment media (movies & sound-tracks) are "add-ons" -- i.e. they must create the demand and the consumers buy into it.

From my perspective the entire copyright debate tends to boil down to a question of whether or not you are producing something which people are willing to pay to see/hear. From my rather jaded viewpoint the answer is no.

If an individual has a perspective that all copyrighted information will eventually be available for free (which is true to the best of my knowledge) *and* that human lifespan is only limited by our current lack of knowledge with respect to the biology of aging and how to prevent it, then the media producers have a significant problem... I.e. "How do I produce material which people are willing to pay to see now... vs. material which they will (legally) be free to see/hear sometime in the future?"

Even though the material producers have pushed laws which extend copyright protections far beyond their original intent -- the progress in extending the human lifespan has not been locked in stasis either. Unless copyright protections are pushed beyond the maximum feasible human lifespan I will eventually have *legal* access to all of the material for free.

So it would appear the entire "copying" debate is wrapped up in the question of whether or not one has access to it "now" or at sometime in the future. One could obviously draw analogies between the entertainment realm and other forms of self-gratification.

Press Release on DoJ site

[Nitra]

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/press_room/press_rel eases/2005_4157_internetpiracy072805.pdf