Sweden's File Sharing Debate Becomes Mass Brawl

praps writes "When Sweden's Data board gave the film and games industry organisation Antipiratbyrån an exemption from data protection laws last week it seemed that file sharers were on the ropes. Then the music industry joined in with some punches of its own, saying it too will hunt those who share songs online. Suddenly, file sharers have the support of their ISPs, who are refusing to cooperate with the big industries - and it's game on." From the article: "Only the file sharer's ISP can link the IP address to the person. If the ISP receives a request for such information from the police, they cannot refuse it, but a few calls from TT revealed that requests from APB would be ignored." We've previously reported on Swedish anti-downloading laws before.

Comments

da da dadada da DA dadada

[yagu]

Antipiratbyrån: (panting...) Ain't gonna be no rematch

ISP's: Don't want one. (we won't need one!)

ISP's: Adrian!

file sharers: Rocky!

ISP's: Adrian!

file sharers: Rocky!

ISP's: Adrian!

file sharers: Rocky!

Re:da da dadada da DA dadada

[c_forq]

Worst. Rocky. Refernce. Ever.

Re:da da dadada da DA dadada

[Guysmiley777]

No, this is the worst Rocky reference ever:

"Hey this is like in that movie with that guy. You know the one who plays the boxer? Yeah and he like yells his wife's name and stuff at the end of the fight. This is just like that."

You're welcome.

Makes me laugh.

[dada21]

Every lawsuit against people not judged to be criminals by their friends and family is just another mark against the recording and film industries. You know what they say about business: anger one customer and they tell 10 friends.

These lawsuits go beyond anger, they financially hurt customers. For every $10,000 they receive in settlements, they could be losing multiples of in lost future business.

My luddite parents discovered P2P because of some news article about these suits in the U.S. They were blind to Napster since its inception.

I wasn't surprised to see Limewire on my dad's PC a few months ago. This is a guy who never touched a mouse until 2003.

You can stop a river with a boulder when it is still a 6" trickle. Yet the boulder does not one bit when the river is a torrent.

In the long run, ISPs who share privilege information will go out of business. I hereby amend my previous position: "Information that hurts no innocents wants to be freely accessible."

Re:Makes me laugh.

[stillmatic]

In the long run, ISPs who share privilege information will go out of business. Exactly.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[rovingeyes]

For every $10,000 they receive in settlements, they could be losing multiples of in lost future business.

Not trying to pick on you, but I find that statement little odd. May be I am not understanding RIAA business, but are they selling anything directly to the consumer? RIAA is an association - a front for Recording industry. If people collectively decide that RIAA is evil, which they wouldn't be wrong by the way, how hard is to abolish that start a new front with a new name and do the same shoddy things all over again? Mean while the recording comanies will still be selling music. Once people are listening to the music they like, they don't think about RIAA or BMG for that matter.

I know every body keeps complaining that artists are screwed and blah blah blah. But in reality, I am seeing a lot of artists supporting RIAA and co. To name a few - Metallica, Eminem etc. Even the one that are quiet are guilty according to me. Even if they are not getting paid their worth or their share, they are getting enough to buy and maintain a lavish lifestyle. Bottom line - it doesn't matter what people think as long as we have urge and need for music. Consumer will be screwed, whether you like it or not. My $0.02

Re:Makes me laugh.

[Tim C]

I hereby amend my previous position: "Information that hurts no innocents wants to be freely accessible."

What about the innocent artists, most of who are just trying to make enough money to live on by selling their music?

Re:Makes me laugh.

[www-xenu-dot-net]

"Information that hurts no innocents wants to be freely accessible." Could we please stop anthromorphising information. It doesn't like that.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[prefect42]

Play more gigs.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[adavies42]

Metallica are in it purely for the money--they are one of the few bands out there that gets a significant portion of album sales (50%, IIRC). I don't know what kind of deal Eminem gets, but I wouldn't be surprised it it's similar.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[Mick Ohrberg]

...and make better music.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[peragrin]

Then they shouldn't sign a deal with the recording industry were said insudtry gets 70-80% of the revenue generated.

Sure an artist might get a coupl of million for a million albums sold. Of course their sponsers just got 3-4 times that.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[autocracy]

Verbatim:

Yet the boulder does not one bit when the river is a torrent.

Long live Bram Cohen

Re:Makes me laugh.

[Paradise Pete]

Well put. Businesses attack their customers only in a panic, when they don't know what else to do. Long-term it can only be suicide.

Re:Makes me laugh.

['nother poster]

Then they should sell their music, not the rights to it. Hmmm, let's see. The record company pays for the time in the recording studio. They get the rights to the music recorded because it's a work for hire. They then recoupe the cost of the recording studio time from the artists take of the sales, but continue to own the rights to the songs. Well, I geuss they should negotiate with a different major label since this one sucks. What do you mean all of them have almost identical contracts? Well, then the artists should be happy to suffer for their art. Don't you think?

Yes I realize that this is ridiculosly over simplified, but does cover the basics of most initial contracts for most bands.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[Dr Caleb]

Be careful with that joke. It's a delicate antique.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[rubycodez]

do you understand they've built a kind of mafia and monopoly, and they have politicians and judges in they're back pocket. Saying it would go away if people didn't want it is very naive, kind of like saying Republican neo-cons will go away because most people don't like what they're doing

Re:Makes me laugh.

[jhill]

The reasons why the ones you've mentioned are supporting the RIAA is that they have deals put on their album such that they make a good chunk of change off of each one sold ( points per album, etc ). Plus when you are the one that manufactures the album, own your own recording study, have your own distribution network, the RIAA sees very little off of those albums. So why not be seen as a standup citizen. It's the people/bands who are just hitting the seen that get bent over the most by the likes of the RIAA. That's why many new bands ( and some old ) are releasing directly to the net and skipping what they, and many others, see as an archaic systme.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[frizop]

Courtney Love told it best http://www.cdbaby.net/articles/courtney_love.html

Re:Makes me laugh.

[civilizedINTENSITY]

The recording study does *not* pay for the time in the recording studio. Rather, there are no profits until CD sells pay for the time in the recording studio, and the costs of distribution. Once fixed costs and variable costs are covered, what is left is divided by percentage. Therefor it isn't that they recoup the cost of the studio time from the artists' take of the sales, because it isn't the artists' take at that point.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Actually (in the US) it is the jury's duty to determine facts, and the judge's duty to interpret the law. A judge can and will set aside the jury decision if the facts at hand clearly indicate (or were stipulated to...) criminal action. Jury's can't legally ignore bad laws.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[wcrowe]

I disagree, and the reason is because people are like crack addicts when it comes to music. And the music industry knows it.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[teknopagan]

I (and Wikipedia) would kindly disagree with that.

From Wikipedia:

Jury nullification is a jury's refusal to render a verdict according to the law, as instructed by the court, regardless of the weight of evidence presented. Instead, a jury bases its judgment on other grounds. Historically, examples include the unjustness of the law, injustice of its application, the race of a party, or the jury's own common sense.

Jury nullification is a de facto power of the jury, and is not ordinarily described as a right. The power of jury nullification derives from an inherent quality of most modern common law systems--a general unwillingness to inquire into jurors' motivations during or after deliberations. A jury's ability to nullify the law is further supported by two common law precedents: the prohibition on punishing jury members for their verdict, and the prohibition on retrying criminal defendants after an acquittal (see related topic Double jeopardy).

Jury nullification is the source of much debate. Some maintain that it is an important safeguard of last-resort against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny. Others view it as an abuse of the right to a trial by jury that undermines the law and violates the oath sworn to by jurors.

--------

Juries in the United States have always had the power to ignore laws they feel are unjust. It's just another of the multitude of checks and balances put into place by the founding fathers of the country, and fortunately one of the few of those that haven't been taken away from us.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[EzInKy]

The Wikipedia seems to disagree with you. So does FindLaw according to this passage:


The jury has the ultimate power to decide whether a person is guilty of a crime. As the "conscience of the community," jurors can free a defendant even if they think the defendant actually committed the crime charged. The name for this power is "jury nullification." It has always been a part of our judicial system.

When jurors nullify a law by acquitting a defendant who has obviously broken that law, judges and prosecutors can do nothing about it. A jury's not guilty verdict is final. Jury nullification rarely occurs, but when it does, it most often involves cases that have a political component (such as the refusal to convict draft dodgers during the Vietnam War) or that have harsh punishments the jury does not want to impose on that particular defendant.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[garyrich]

Incorrect, or at least incomplete information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Re:Makes me laugh.

[LeeMeador]

>You know what they say about business:
>anger one customer and they tell 10 friends.
 
Funny how they tell one friend for each finger (and thumb). I wonder if people with a missing finger tell less of their friends.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[EzInKy]

What about the innocent artists, most of who are just trying to make enough money to live on by selling their music?


Those who side with their fans will survive, those who don't won't.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[robertjw]

Once people are listening to the music they like, they don't think about RIAA or BMG for that matter.

That's why the RIAA exists, to protect the interests of the studios while minimizing negative PR for individual companies in the recording industry. If one individual company, say Sony, started throwing around lawsuits it would be easy for consumers to stop buying their products. With the RIAA it's difficult to know where individual studios, publishers, distributors or artists stand on the issue. Most people don't want to boycott music altogether, so the RIAA can act without hurting it's market much.

But in reality, I am seeing a lot of artists supporting RIAA and co. To name a few - Metallica, Eminem etc.

A lot of artists? You named two, and neither are what I would call typical artists. Metallica has sold out and is over the hill. Most old school Metallica fans I know either have grown up or think all of their new stuff sucks. Their career has peaked and they have much more to gain by supporting the RIAA than by pissing off their fans. Eminem is similar. He's at the point where he can put out any crap and people will buy it, kinda like U2, plus there's rumours he's going to retire. Again, he has nothing to lose from denouncing file sharing and everything to gain.

It's interesting to me that there are only a few artists that have actively come out in support of the RIAA's position out of thousands of musicians. I don't think the quiet ones are guilty, I think they are just smart enough to not get involved. They don't want to alienate their fans, but they want to keep a good relationship with their studios. It's actually somewhat unfortunate. It would be interesting to know what most artists honestly think about file trading, but as long as the RIAA and the studios are involved I don't think we will get an honest answer from anyone.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[d34thm0nk3y]

I am anthropomorphic information you insensitive clod!

Re:Makes me laugh.

[cdrguru]

For every $10,000 they receive in settlements, they could be losing multiples of in lost future business.

What business? Are you still paying for music? Why? None of it goes to the artists. So what possible "future business" is there to lose? This is a fight to the death, and the music business knows it. Their death, because as P2P expands, they lose customers forever.

Come on, you aren't going to try to say you think the RIAA deserves you buying music, are you?

Re:Makes me laugh.

[moxley]

The RIAA's use for artists is analogous to the Farmer's use for cattle. All they care about is money, stopping competition, destroying anything that threatens the status quo of their powerful position in regard to the industry - even when it's something consumers and artists want, if they can't control it and it doesn't fit into their paradigm then they would rather see it gone. Anything they say about "protecting artists" is about as genuine as Bush when he speaks about "freedom." They are protecting their racket.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[PsiPsiStar]

Yeah, which is why I'm not going to buy any music unless I'm sure they're not part of some music mafia or that said mafia doesn't get any money.

We need to have more 'good and bad' lists so people can be better informed on who the litigant musicians are.

Metallica learned its lesson about having its name associated with lawsuits.

Hopefully we could do the same for other supporters of the RIAA. Madonna is in it too. A lot of the established, has-been names are.

Here's a list

Re:Makes me laugh.

[iminplaya]

do you understand they've built a kind of mafia and monopoly...

Monopoly or not, nobody is forcing us to buy any of it.

Saying it would go away if people didn't want it is very naive, kind of like saying Republican neo-cons will go away because most people don't like what they're doing

Nothing naive about it. They will go away the moment people stop supporting them and voting for them. Nobody's forcing us to vote for them either. The fact is that the majority of people who voted do like what they're doing. Unless you have solid evidence that states otherwise.

In short, the choice is ours to make, not the RIAA's, neo-cons', or anybody else's. Get 51% to vote your way and the problem will go away in the following January(plus or minus a few years).

Re:Makes me laugh.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I hereby amend my previous position: "Information that hurts no innocents wants to be freely accessible."

No, all information wants to be free, just like chlorine gas wants to expand to fill whatever volume it occupies.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[el_gordo101]

Too funny. You have inspired me to introduce a new googlebomb target:
scumbag, swine, pig, bastard

Re:Makes me laugh.

[antiMStroll]

"I know every body keeps complaining that artists are screwed and blah blah blah. But in reality, I am seeing a lot of artists supporting RIAA and co."

Of course, established 'artists' with strong contracts written to fit the current system will support them. Garth Brooks at the peak of his industry power even called for levies on the resale of used CDs reasoning that, after all, consumers are paying to hear his music, not buying a CD. For every one of them there are thousands for whom the RIAA do nothing of benefit. The Haves want to maintian and strengthen the current system to the point of federal regulation of information movement (for Eminem or Metallica, god help us...) and Have Nots are locked out of the system by RIAA payola and oligarchical control of distribution channels. That's the easy part to understand, the hard is why any outside of an entertainent company's board room or a bought politican like Fritz Holling would support the RIAA.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[Alsn]

You're totally missing the point about what is bad about monopolies. Monopolies are bad because there are *no* real alternatives. The very reason that there are laws against monopoly abuse is because its bad bad bad. Saying "noone is forcing you" is totally besides the point because theres no alternative(or well, there is, it's called p2p but there's no *legal* alternative).

Re:Makes me laugh.

[geekee]

" Then they shouldn't sign a deal with the recording industry were said insudtry gets 70-80% of the revenue generated.

Sure an artist might get a coupl of million for a million albums sold. Of course their sponsers just got 3-4 times that."

Try going to a group of venture capitalists with a risky business venture and see how much of a cut you get. They're taking all the risk because a band just declares bankruptcy if they don't make it. Record companies deserve the lions share of profit since they take all the risk.

Re:Makes me laugh.

['nother poster]

Ok, who pays the $50-$100/hr fee for the recording studio? Are you saying that they take their fee as points on the album? Hmmm, lets do a little googling. Nope. The studios want their money up front. What do you know, it's listed on the contract as a recoupable cost, so the label pays and takes it out of your royalties. Now, you may have been thinking of the engeneers and producers on the album, and they are known to take three or so points as payment. Oh yeah, the studio also pays for the recording media(tape) and then recoupe the costs. What does a hundred feet of 16 track go for nowadays?

The label pays the studio. The label then recoupes the costs from the artists through the sales. If the artists never sell any music, they may have to pay the label back anyway. It depends on how the contract is written. If the artists have massive sales they may never see a dime if their royalties can't cover the recoupe because it is debited from their royalty payments before disbursment.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[linuxrocks123]

Parent is correct, people. Your own quote says that "jury nullification is not normally described as a right."

Jury nullification is a result of THE JURY ABUSING ITS POWER. If a jury attempts, a judge can (and a good judge will) rule that the jury ruled on an incorrect basis and reverse the jury's verdict. If the jury and judge disagree on the law and push comes to shove, the judge wins. This is a good thing: imagine a scenario where there was no evidence against a defendant on trial for murder except a slew of character witnesses testifying to the ignorant, bigoted Christian jury that the accused denied God and any absolute standard for morality. Judges are sometimes corrupt, yes, but they're still better than a group of 12 dumbasses taken off the street who know the laws of neither the land nor probability.

If you're still a fan of jury trials, read up on the Scopes trial and get back to me.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[iminplaya]

It is govt protection that allows those monopolies to exist in the first place. They can't do it on their own.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[lowrydr310]

Metallica are in it purely for the money

When you say 'in it' do you mean supporting the RIAA or making/performing music in general? After seeing them in concert, I would believe the latter is true. It was absolutely the worst frickin concert I've ever been to. Aside from the poor acoustics (don't know if it was them or the arena) they really didn't seem to be enjoying themselves on stage. Contrast that with the Beastie Boys - that was one of the best concerts ever. It was so obvious they were having fun on stage (and making a ton of money too) which made it a much better concert.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[adavies42]

Both, now that you mention it, though I was initially talking about their support for the RIAA. Me, I can't stand thrash metal--I've been getting into symphonic/epic metal lately, Nightwish and Blind Guardian and so on.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[teknopagan]

You have this one backwards - the judge has the power to overturn a wrongful conviction, in cases where there is no evidence that could convince any reasonable jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge does not ever have the power to overturn a jury nullification acquittal. We're protected from something called 'Double Jeopardy' in these here states.

If you're still so positive that jury nullification is an abuse of power, consider this tidbit from The Juror's Handbook, info correlated in the aforementioned Wikipedia article:

In fact, the power of jury nullification predates our Constitution. In November of 1734, a printer named John Peter Zenger was arrested for seditious libel against his Majesty's government. At that time, a law of the Colony of New York forbid any publication without prior government approval. Freedom of the press was not enjoyed by the early colonialists! Zenger, however, defied this censorship and published articles strongly critical of New York colonial rule.

When brought to trial in August of 1735, Zenger admitted publishing the offending articles, but argued that the truth of the facts stated justified their publication. The judge instructed the jury that truth is not justification for libel. Rather, truth makes the libel more vicious, for public unrest is more likely to follow true, rather than false claims of bad governance. And since the defendant had admitted to the "fact" of publication, only a question of "law" remained.

Then, as now, the judge said the "issue of law" was for the court to determine, and he instructed the jury to find the defendant guilty. It took only ten minutes for the jury to disregard the judge's instructions on the law and find Zenger NOT GUILTY.

That is the power of the jury at work; the power to decide the issues of law under which the defendant is charged, as well as the facts. In our system of checks and balances, the jury is our final check, the people's last safegard against unjust law and tyranny.

A further note from Chief Justice John Jay, to the jury in the first jury trial held before the Supreme Court.

"It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision....you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."

See, we used to have judges who didn't lie to their juries.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[Your Anus]

RIAA is an association - a front for Recording industry

Much like the Mob is an association of "legitimate businessmen from New Jersey."

The RIAA treats customers and artists as adversaries. In its mind, coercion and extortion are the best ways to ensure future earnings, not better product and lower prices. The recording industry (the entertainment industry in general) has a low ethical standard that would make the crooks from Enron, WorldCom, and Adelphia proud. That the RIAA continues to thrive while the crooks who stole millions from those companies are in prison speaks to the silliness of our system of justice.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[GooberToo]

I often find errors there. Simple fact is, "ultimate power" actually rests with the Judge. It is the Judge that gives validity to a jury's verdict. Sure, it's nice to play make believe and thing as the above state reads, but back in reality, Judges can and sometimes do set aside legally rendered jury verdicts and usurp it with their own.

In cases where a jury's verdict is contrary to established law, chances are a judge will set aside the jury's verdict.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[lc_overlord]

live readings maybe.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[linuxrocks123]

I was partially incorrect in my previous statement: If a jury abuses its power and acquits someone on an incorrect basis, the judge doesn't have the power to rectify the situation. This is due to double jeapordy. It's somewhat of a shame that this means criminals go free, but I can see why the prohibition on double jeapordy exists and that a jury's verdict should be given more weight when, if the judge were corrupt, an innocent man might go to jail or die.

Jury nullification is still an abuse of power in this case, just as legislating from the bench is. In the case of wrongful criminal acquittals, it's just an abuse of power that is impossible for the judge to fix. This doesn't make it any more valid than legislating from the bench. Congress and the Executive Office need to cooperate, and correction often must wait until the corrupt judge dies.

Jury nullification and judicial activism are two sides of the same coin: both are cases of corruption in the judiciary that usurp democratic process and carry a threat to impose tyranny of the minority. It is fortunate that juries are weak. Were they more powerful, jury nullification might be more of a problem than it is. Fortunately, all a corrupt nullifying jury can do is let a single criminal go free. Corrupt activist judges have the power to make precedent and send innocent people to jail. They are thus a bigger threat.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[oliverthered]

To name a few - Metallica, Eminem etc.

And that's why I no longer buy their music and have told everyone I know not to buy their music. We download it instead.

BTW. Didn't Eminem have a song that glorified downloading music, and does this officially make Robbie Williams cooler than Metallica and Eminem?

Re:Makes me laugh.

[pbaer]

"Even the one that are quiet are guilty according to me. Even if they are not getting paid their worth or their share, they are getting enough to buy and maintain a lavish lifestyle"

Oh right because capitalism is so bad? I honestly don't see how you can claim musicians are guilty by association with the RIAA when their aren't any other major recording companies that musicians can go to.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[oliverthered]

Interstingly Madonna's new album has a track about some 16th Century Jewish mystic called Yitzhak Luria, it's apparently highly shunned to make money on that back of his name, which is what it appears Madonna is doing.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[BrynM]

Of course, established 'artists' with strong contracts written to fit the current system will support them.

It wouldn't surprise me if that were part of the boilerplate contract today. Artists have signed sillier stuff into their contrcts before.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[NecroPuppy]

Not quite.

A judge can set aside a guilty verdict, if he believes the jury has not made their determination based on the facts; however, he cannot set aside a not-guilty verdict.

Ok, maybe he could, but it would be appealled so quickly his head would spin, and he'd probably lose his position on the bench.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[Tink2000]

$50-100/ per hour for recording time?
Maybe in your cousin's basement.
Try about $500-1000 per hour for a fair recording studio and that's before you add in the engineer (aka the guy who makes you sound better than you are).

Re:Makes me laugh.

[Catbeller]

Nonsense. there is no such thing as a 'wrongful acquital'. You made that up. If the jury finds someone innocent, that's it, it's over, no second guessing by you. It's not 'wrongful'. There is no legal concept for what you just made up.

And it's about par with the idea of 'judicial activism'. The biggest self-determined opponents of such are on the Supreme Court, where they just last (?) week decided that Oregon had no right to legalize suicide even if the voters decide it is law. They overrode it, let's face facts here, because it offends their religion. THAT is judicial activism, and hypocrisy. JA is not a philosphy. It's a smear word used by those who want to shut down 'liberal' decisions. Right wing judge lawmaking is perfectly fine by their lights, because their Federalist Society judges are always right, and liberal socialist commie judges are always wrong.

Re:Makes me laugh.

['nother poster]

Those were the cheapest independents I could find prices for on the web. As I stated on my previous post you MAY be able to get the engineer and producer to do it for just points on the sales, but don't hold your breath.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[linuxrocks123]

"There is no legal concept for what you just made up."
Well, I wasn't speaking in legal concepts. I thought the term "wrongful acquittal" was obvious enough that it needed no definition. I still don't think it needs a definition, but I'll give one anyway. Someone is wrongfully acquitted if the following two conditions hold:
1. They are acquitted of the crime for which they were charged.
2. There does not exist reasonable doubt that they committed the crime for which they were charged.

The goal of the justice system is to dispense justice. Whenever someone gets off even though they committed the crime, that is unjust, but we as a society think it's worse if someone gets punished for a crime we didn't commit, so we only convict if there isn't "reasonable doubt" that they are guilty. If there isn't resasonable doubt that they committed the crime but they get off anyway, the justice system has failed to do its duty, and that is wrong.

"They overrode it, let's face facts here, because it offends their religion."
I agree with you that if the Supreme Court ruled on their personal biases instead of the law, they are being activist, and that is bad. I'm not sure if I agree with you that this particular case was incorrectly decided because I've neither the Oregon statute in question nor the Supreme Court decision.

Conservative activism isn't any better than liberal activism, and I certainly agree with you that there are conservative (especially neocon) judges who are corrupt and are making bad rulings. I wasn't making a right wing vs. left wing statement; I was talking about the concept of abuse of judicial power in general. Both major parties abuse power, and it's equally bad when either does it.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[StikyPad]

Yeah, it's great.. if you don't read the whole thing.

I will be the first in line to file a class action suit to protect my copyrights if Napster or even the far more advanced Gnutella doesn't work with us to protect us. I'm on [Metallica drummer] Lars Ulrich's side

(Un)fortunately, the opinions of strung out heroin addicts aren't taken very seriously to begin with.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[42forty-two42]

Note, however, the defense is not allowed to inform the jury of this right.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[jp10558]

I really like Blind Guardian - I'm checking out Nightwish now - any other suggestions other than Falconer or Symphony X?

Re:Makes me laugh.

[adavies42]

The other bands in my Symphonic Metal genre in iTunes are: Andromeda, Demons & Wizards, Pagan's Mind, Sonata Arctica, and Zeroesque. Not all of these are of equal quality--Zeroesque's album in particular quickly degenerates into this awful jazz shit in the later tracks--but they were all good enough for me to keep around. Otherwise, I suggest browsing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphonic_metal and related pages.

BTW, I got into symphonic metal through progressive rock, a lot of which shares some similarities. You might give Dream Theater a try and see if you'll like prog too.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[Anarchitect_in_oz]

So do you think Steve and the iPod team read this.
It sounds like the business plan to iTunes, iPod and the music store.
right down to the line about only artists who's ablums are mostly a couple of singles and filler would be affraid of per track sales.

Sure Apple (computer) can't a music label, really they are just acting as a content delivery agent.

I'm sure they are not the only ones who read this at some stage and just got it.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[TheJaff]

I wasn't surprised to see Limewire on my dad's PC a few months ago. This is a guy who never touched a mouse until 2003.

And yet here you are, a one year old (give or take), posting interesting stuff on slashdot. Geesh kids grow up fast nowadays.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[shmlco]

"Businesses attack their customers only in a panic..."

Of course, this brings us back to the point: If someone is stealing everything I produce, is he really a "customer"?

Re:Makes me laugh.

[sp3tt]

The part that's real great is that to be allowed to store data about people, the have to tell them that they are doing so. Before storing any information. "Hello, I'm from Antipiratbyrån and I want to put you all in jail." I can see them getting banned from every hub and tracker in no time.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[scolbe]

yeah... well I don't think you did read the whole thing and instead saw that and only that.

here is my take on the actual context of that quote. What she is saying is that if you are going to make money off distributing songs you share that income with the artists that made those songs, but don't even think about 'sharing' it in the same way as the major music labels do at cents on the dollar with all the expenses charged to the artist. If the new guard does the same thing as the old hated guard did the old guard might as well be still there.
(my opinion only, what she actually thinks has no connection to it)

Re:Makes me laugh.

[Loquis]

Within Temptation - have a listen to Mother Earth and The Silent Force

Re:Makes me laugh.

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Agreed, that after a little research it does appear that there is a defacto power (though absolutely no right) for a jury to disregard the law and apply their own brand of mercy.

"These constitutional rules, in combination, give a criminal jury the inherent discretionary power to "decline to convict." and insure that such "discretionary exercises of leniency are final and unreviewable." McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 311(1987). ".

However, in terms of duty:

nullification poses a threat to the process by which existing jurisprudence is vindicated. This threat was addressed by Justice Harlan in 1895 in Sparf v. United States. There the Supreme Court held that it is the duty of a jury in a criminal case to apply the law as given to it by the trial court. This decision set a precedent that has been followed to the present

However, this duty is mostly unenforcable once the verdict is rendered. I would suggest that it does seem that the "unwillingness to inquire into jurors' motivations during or after deliberations" has abated:

California Supreme Court unanimously backed a Santa Clara County judge's actions in dismissing a juror who expressed the opinion in the jury room that statutory rape shouldn't be a crime.

Under California's 1998 "snitch" rule, judges routinely order jurors to inform the court if a juror is not applying the law during deliberations.

"Jury nullification is contrary to our ideal of equal justice for all and permits both the prosecution's case and the defendant's fate to depend upon the whims of a particular jury, rather than upon the equal application of settled rules of law," Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote

Re:Makes me laugh.

[GooberToo]

Actually, chances are about zero that he would lose his position on the bench. With that falsehood set aside, your comment really didn't add much to the thread.

Remember, we're not talking about someone that woke up that day and said, "I think I'm going to screw some people over." Generally, when a verdict is set aside, the Judge has legal standing to do so. Setting aside a verdict is supposed to be in the "interest of justice."

Long story short, we're back to my original statement, which is 100% valid.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[raddan]

Every lawsuit against people not judged to be criminals by their friends and family is just another mark against the recording and film industries. You know what they say about business: anger one customer and they tell 10 friends.

Even worse than this, unjust lawsuits undermine our faith in the justice system.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[TheLink]

" Whenever someone gets off even though they committed the crime, that is unjust,"

You miss a significant point. Not all laws are just.

Say the defendant did break the law, but if the jury acquits because they think the law is unjust, is that really injustice?

After all, remember who makes those laws - fallible people. Nowadays all too often it's the corporations and fat cats, through legislators they influence.

If one can't trust the jury's judgement in general, then one should do away with juries totally.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[linuxrocks123]

"If one can't trust the jury's judgement in general, then one should do away with juries totally."

Yes. Juries are obsolete, and they weren't that good an idea to begin with anyway. I probably would demand a judge trial if I were charged with a crime unless I had reason to believe the judge was corrupt. Btw, I don't know if a defendant can demand a trial by judge. If someone knows (really knows), please inform me.

Re:Makes me laugh.

[Paradise Pete]

Of course, this brings us back to the point: If someone is stealing everything I produce, is he really a "customer"?

A single sentence filled with such fallacy and illogic that I don't know where to begin. But here's a quick overview: It's not stealing, and you leap to the "everything" extreme in a feeble attempt to strengthen your statement. Don't bother to rebut. Your willingness to stray from the accurate use of language makes debating a senseless endeavor.

Go sweden go!

[Badflash]

Those su*** shouldn't have that much power in their hands! They don't know how to use it so... Go ISP go! Anyways, cusotmers ARE giving them money... aren't they? Music, information, entertainment should be free!

Re:Go sweden go!

[CRiMSON]

That's a stupid statement.

Music, information, entertainment should be free! ... If the owner of said item wants it to be.

Musicians don't make music to just give it away (some do) but they also need to eat. I have no problems handing over some cash for a CD I like.

What I don't like doing is handing over 25.99 for a cd, and having 23.99 go to a label, .50 to a another schmuck, and then .50 to the musician.

That's what I don't like.

But running around saying it all should be free is ridiculous. Remember, making that cd you listen to, or that mp3 you just downloaded, took time, took money and is someones lively hood.

It's like stating all car repairs should be free!

Re:Go sweden go!

[Badflash]

Well, why not? If only USA would send their money in China instead of crashing on mars or elsewhere... Maybe AT LEAST everybody would be able to eat 1 meal a day. Anyways, the wall is coming pretty fast but you can't see it.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Rycross]

It might help if you actually provide reasoning behind your post. Like why entertainment should be free, and if it is free how you are going to fund creation of new entertainment. Independant bands haven't had much trouble so far, but making an independant game or movie is pretty hard to do if you can't be expected to get money back through sales. Most of the indie games and movies aren't anywhere near the quality of those made by game and movie studios.

So, what do you propose? Have the people fund it through tax revenue? But why should my dollars go towards music, movies, and games I don't want to buy?

Care to share your brilliance with us, instead of labelling people who disagree "brainwashed capitalist?" Ad hominem attacks, and proclaiming that you are obviously right without giving any sort of reasoning, are the hallmarks of a weak mind.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Chosen Reject]

You can have all the free entertainment you want. Don't you know how to entertain yourself? There are libraries for books and some audio/video entertainment even if you can't entertain yourself. I'm sure you could also find other free entertainments. But no matter how much you wish or think something should be free, it is not logical to think someone should entertain you for free. They are creative, and some work hard for what they do, be it creating books, songs, movies, comedy routines, etc. and demanding that they give you it for free is the same as the grandparent said, "It's like stating all car repairs should be free!"

Re:Go sweden go!

[b4stard]

... is someones lively hood.

Well, my hood sure as hell would be alot more lively if it's residents would visit the pirate bay (shameless plug) and get some good music for the next block party.

That aside, it's not like "stating all car repairs should be free", but rather like "stating all citizens should be allowed to replicate car parts freely."
My point being, if any, that comparing immaterial stuff to physical objects won't get anyone anywhere. It's like oranges and immaterial apples.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Rycross]

Music, information, entertainment should be free!

All I'm hearing is that you don't want to pay for stuff, and decided to come up with a flimsy argument to justify it.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Rycross]

Your precious China's economy is rapidly becomming a capatilist economy (one could even argue that its already there). Moreover, in case you hadn't been keeping up, China does charge for their entertainment, they are funding space exploration, and there are poor and homeless in China. What was your point again? I'm not seeing the wall here.

Come on man, think! Use that brain you were born with.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Badflash]

Well, Wall-mart isn't a wall or something?

Re:Go sweden go!

[AvitarX]

Basic math lesson:

40$ != 20$

not for the non ad hominem part:

The RIAA has an expensive business model. Most people involved do not make mch money, just a few at the top , artists and managers alike(like pretty much anywhere). People get into because they want to take the risk. The artists choose to go with the RIAA because they want the big $$$$. There are examples of artists who do well otherwise (Fugazi springs to mind), so instead of blaming the RIAA blame the greedy artists who want to make it big.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Rycross]

You're pretty right... I guess we actually give subvention to those "huuuuuge" companies from Hollywood here in Canada. You know? That kind of public funds helping private companies getting more money ...? Tax refunds and stuff like that. They actually are giving my money to these guys.

Tax refunds are not taking away money from corporations, not giving them money. Most of our tax revenue comes from those corporations anyway, you know. And the rich. More to the point, those "huuuuuuge" companies provide jobs and livelihood to a lot of people.

I don't feel that they should get as much tax breaks as they do, but lets be accurate and realistic here. The government isn't taking your money and giving it to them. They're taking less money from them than you think they should (and I think they should, in some cases). Moreover, often times its money that they earned, by funding, developing, and putting out a product.

When a band comes here, like lets say U2 or Metallica, they often get those subvention ... I pay 10$ to see the movie at a cinema places, THEY should give me the DVD freely since I paid my right to see it. If I go see Metallica show somewhere, THEY should give me their latest CD.

So wait, you say entertainment should be free, but then say that you should get entertainment after paying for it, then say that you actually do pay for it? Make up your mind.

You don't tell me why they SHOULD give you their CD for attending the concert. You are paying for the concert, not the CD. And Metallica has a right to do whatever they want with their property and their events. If you don't like that you don't get a CD, then don't pay for it.

Anyways, 30$ for the DVD, 20$ for the CD is simply extorsion. If it was 5$ I don't say, but they are simply abusing. And the price of the media isn't that expensive. Why did titanic made nearly 1 billion $ in raw income?

Oh boy, you obviously haven't taken any sort of class in economics. First of all, $20 for a CD is extortion to you. There are people out there who feel that $20 is a perfectly acceptable price point, and a fair trade for that CD. They're called customers. Its basic supply and demand. More to the point, while CD's are cheap in terms of reproduction and raw materials, you have to pay to develop the content which actually goes on that CD. Studios, artists, producers, advertisement, instruments, etc are not cheap.

Special effects for Titanic, as well as sets and actors are not cheap either. Raw income is just that... raw income. It doesn't take into account how much it cost to make in the first place. And it made $1 billion because that many people thought spending money to see the movie and buying the dvds was a fair trade for the entertainment. There is no extortion going on here.

And WE don't have pretty much choice if WE like the full album. THEY whine because they make LESS money because THEY abuse our wallets.

YOU have a choice whether or not to buy the album. If enough people thought the price point was unfair, they wouldn't buy, and the price would go down. Enough people think the price point is fair to keep it there.

THEY are not forcing you to buy anything. You are making a choice to buy it, and you are the one abusing your own wallet.

You have obvious problems taking responsibility for your spending habits, and are obviously just making the same flimsy and tired arguments to support your copyright infringment as everyone else. If you're going to try to justify your actions, then you might want to do so with an ounce of acknowledgement to personal responsibility and basic economics.

Re:Go sweden go!

[mowler2]

No thats stupid - to say patterns can be "owned". Patterns are just patterns, and if person A knows a pattern and tells parson B this pattern there is nothing that makes a person C able to regulate it.

If some laws say otherwise, the laws are stupid to. Whats stupid or not is not determined by law but is a subjective view. You think it is natural that people own patterns, but many dont think so.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Chosen Reject]

Whether you think it is crap or not is not the point. Whether you think entertainment is productive or not is not the point. I personally don't see any reason why anybody "needs" a PDA. Should they be free? Why not? I don't find them productive, so they should be free then, right? Wrong. Somebody put their effort into it and they want to paid for your use of that effort. Same thing goes for entertainment. Someone puts effort into it and if they want to be paid for your use of that effort, then you have no right to demand that they don't. But if you don't want to pay for it, then don't. There are lots of people out there that do give away their efforts for free. If that's what you want, then take that. But don't demand that someone should give away their efforts for free. They can do so if they wish, but that is up to them.

And another thing. Why does everyone always bring up that this or that is crap and so it should be free or whatever. If you don't like then ignore it. There are not any laws or moral obligations that say you have to participate in it. If it's crap and you wouldn't have paid for it anyway, why are you downloading it? If it's crap and you don't want it, why are you complaining about it?

What I don't understand is why people think they need new music. Don't they realize there are decades of good music out there already?

I know some people who listen to oldies CDs and still buy the new stuff. Yes they are well aware that there are decades worth of music. I am sure most people are. Most people also have heard of "Leave it to Beaver" but still want to watch new TV shows. Most people have heard of Jimmy Stewart but like to watch new Movies. All gamers know about Pong but still like to play Halo. In fact, everyone has heard of Shakespeare but quite a few still like whatever Andrew Lloyd Weber might come out with next. Just because there is some old time equivalent doesn't mean that people won't like new stuff.

Curiously I wonder: Why do you think that being in the entertainment business is not a "real" job? What are your standards for "productive"?

Re:Go sweden go!

[Hrvat]

Hey, entertainment is free if you're the one providing it. What the hell do you think the artists eat while they write and perform the music? Air? Even "free" concerts are paid for by someone, and most of the time the artist will perform only a few of the concerts for no compensation.

And the $10000 is certainly not meant to pay for the downloaded music. It's meant as a deterrent. You have to enforce it, but the threat of being sued and forced to pay $10k is enough to turn off some people from downloading music.

Is it moronic to sue people over downloading music? Maybe. IMHO, they should concentrate on distributors not the consumers.

Re:Go sweden go!

[mooingyak]

Those su*** shouldn't have that much...

Those what? I've spent some time looking at it and I'm stumped. Based on the surrounding grammar, it should be plural, so I've got su**s. Sucks? Sunks?

Re:Go sweden go!

[CRiMSON]

So because some people Made some good music back in the 1500's We should have stopped then? What about the 1200's? I'm pretty sure for that time they had some kicking tunes.

Music never stops evolving. You think pop is crap (so do i) but the fact is. it's still music, and it's evolved and is still evolving.

And not counting entertainment as a job? So I guess when metallica (or insert another band here) is done cutting that new album, it's back to work?!

Do you have any fathom of an idea how much work goes into a cd? It's not as simple as gather 3-4 friends, and busting out some tunes and sticking it on a cd. From start to finish, the whole process could take months.

Got a friend who owns a graphics shop and sometimes get work to do cd labels for underground/independant artists.

Last guy he did who was a R&B style artist, spent 6 months making his cd. Writing songs, recording, publishing contracts. It's a full time job. So to come out and say that it's not, and they should give it away free is quite the slap in the face.

So Miles Davis should have just performed in his spare time?

Why do people need new music? Because listening to the same cd's over and over gets quite boring. And it's fun to listen to new music, new concepts in music.

People who turn on MTV, watch music videos for 30 mins, and then declare all new music is crap, and there is no new styles out should look outside the box.

There are 1000's of amazing songs out there being release every week by artists who will never get radio play time, Because they aren't not writing "popular music"

Put down your 8-track tape and check out some music sites like mp3.com and browse the artists. I bet you money you'll find new stuff you like.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Guysmiley777]

Here's the deal: I have no problem paying ARTISTS for their work. I have a problem paying corporations who through lobbying and slimy lawyer tricks control the distribution chain for an artist's work. If

Car repair shouldn't be free, but the MECHANIC should get be the one getting paid. That's why I take my car to a locally owned shop (Frank's Auto Repair) where Frank gets my money instead of "Giant Corporate Auto Repair Inc." where they pay a mechanics $15/hour yet charge the customer $90/hour for labor on repairs. I want to see the WORKER get the money.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Hrvat]

First, I agree with everything Rycross said.

Second, about this performance thingy....
Look closer at your movie ticket and you'll see what you're paying for: You're paying for the PRIVILEGE of sitting in a comfy seat, watching ONE screening on a big screen and then getting the hell out of the movie theatre.
Concerts... you're paying for a privilege of watching a unique performance by a performer. If you'd like a CD, well, that wasn't included in the price. Most of the ticket cost goes toward covering renting the venue, paying stage hands etc. Or maybe you think that stage hands should work for free?

If you don't like it, well then...don't watch/listen to it. Simple.

I've one question though....what do you do for a living? Have you ever produced something unique? Something that tens of thousands of people would like to use? Would you just give it away?

Re:Go sweden go!

[iamwahoo2]

Most of our tax revenue comes from personal income taxes. I have no problem with this but the myth that Corps pay most taxes needs to be put to rest.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Braino420]

I'm not saying they don't deserve to be compensated in some way for their "hard effort" I'm saying, which i think you missed, that they should not expect to make a living off of "entertainment". I'm not demanding that they work for free, and I think you're forgetting who makes the majority of the money. As far as productive goes, you can look the definition up for yourself. But what I'm refering to as being unproductive is its value in the economy. To put it in very simple terms for you, it doesn't make anyones job easier.

And as for the crap, why would you think I'm downloading it? I'm complaining about it because the people that produce the crap think it's worth far more than it is. Again, a point i thought i made in my original post.

Then, with the older stuff. If people are looking for things to fill their spare time with, entertainment i like to call it, my question is why don't they see that their are lifetimes of entertainment to occupy themselves with? There is so much already out there that one person can't say they have seen it all. So, why do we need more? Hopefully that made my point a little clearer to you.

As far as the real job thing goes, if you don't get it by now, i don't know how to explain it to you any clearer, i'm sorry.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Rycross]

Looks like you're correct. Can't vouch for the accuracy. My point that tax breaks are equivalent to taking less money rather than giving corporations still stands though.

Thanks for your input.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Braino420]

I never said they should give their music away for free... did i?

Ok, your friend spent 6 months working on a cd. its his full time job, you said. ok, does he expect to make 50,000 a year? no, of course not. why he would make this his full time job is beyond me, but if thats what he wants to do more power to him. but he's prob realistic and doesn't expect to have 5 cars 4 houses and 20 mill in the bank like the other blood suckers that are whining because some chump downloaded their crappy music in the first place.

and for you first sentance, i have no idea what you're talking about, i never said anything of the sort in the first place. please dont misquote, kthnx.

Re:Go sweden go!

[crabpeople]

"It's like stating all car repairs should be free!"

bad anology. Its like telling someone how to swap out an alternator (on a radio show), and then not letting them describe to others in as much detail, how to do it. A song isnt a commodity any more than a haynes manual is. My stereo is producing the sound.

A better anology would be that going to see a band at a club is the same as taking your car to the shop. The parts (song, alternator) are availiable to both parties, what counts is that the people actually doing the work ( mechanic, stage musician performing) actually get the money for services rendered. People shouldnt OWN songs. OF course you need to have copyright to give respect to people, but ideally I shouldnt have to pay someone to sing their song, tell their story, or describe how to fix a car. If i could make perfect copies of the aleternator of my car, i shouldnt have to pay anyone to do it.

freedom is independance. slavery is control.

Re:Go sweden go!

[mrcdeckard]

jesus christ. data != real material nor service. ok? ok.

i'm not stating that it doesn't have worth, but IT'S NOT THE SAME AS REAL MATERIAL , GOODS OR SERVICES. YES I AM YELLING.

also, i don't think it's breaking copyright to make a copy of a cd. breaking copyright, to me, is COPYING something as my own. that is, copying a cd and saying, "here, i wrote and recorded/produced/manufactured this".

note i say "manufacture". copying and reselling something as a profit, to me, is what piracy is.

mr c

Re:Go sweden go!

[Rycross]

Why shouldn't they be able to make a living off of entertainment? Even though its not productive to society, it does have a value to people. I think you could say life would be a lot more boring if we didn't have music and the like.

If someone can't make a living off of something, then that means they will have to devote a large portion of their time towards something that they can make a living off of. One could argue that this decreases the quality of art and entertainment, and the amount produced. In fact, this was the original intent of copyright: to promote the production of art and entertainment available to the public by allowing people to make a living off of it. (Unfortunately, originally the intent was that this art would quickly go into public domain for the benefit of everyone, after the artist had made money off of it, which isn't the case anymore)

Also, while musicians can generally put out good quality stuff fairly quickly even with a day job, the same can not be said about other forms of entertainment. The vast majority of independant films and games are low budget, and don't even approach the quality of professional movies and games. In terms of game developement, for any sort of complicated independant project, you may be looking at years of developement, instead of your usual 12-18 months, if it gets done at all.

Another thing I'd like to point out, you seem to be saying, from my point of view, that necessities in life shouldn't be free, but unneeded things should be free. Isn't that the wrong way around? From an idealogical standpoint, the necessities in life should be freely available to everyone, whereas the unneeded things should cost money. This way everyone has their basic right to life fufilled, and are left to pursuit happiness on their own *insert Declaration of Independance quote here*

Re:Go sweden go!

[dwandy]

...if it is free how you are going to fund creation of new entertainment.

Your mistake is in presuming that entertainment only exists because a group of capitalists figured out how to monetize it.

Since music and art have existed for all of human history, I can feel pretty comfortable that it will exist long after the demise of the *AA's.
While the *AA's were able to fill a need (a fundamental element of capitalism), they are (unfortunately for them) no longer required in the artist+fan equation. Their business model has been superceeded by events, and the better distribution model is taking over (another fundamental element of capitalism). What we are witnessing now is a large rich organisation in it's death throes, and is doing what it believes will help it survive (another fundamental element of capitalism).

...so endeth the lesson.

Re:Go sweden go!

[civilizedINTENSITY]

I just can't see any justification for the claim that "IP" should be treated as property. It makes sense to be able to rent a seat at a performance. It doesn't make sense (to me) to be able to stop someone from recording the performance, or from copying (and distributing) the offical recording. The information contained on a CD or DVD should not be property. It really isn't, but we maintain a legal fiction. The problem is that we've maintained the legal fiction long enough that people know suppose that it is "right" to have IP rights.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Rycross]

I don't see any justification for why it shouldn't be. Granted I don't like a lot of IP laws in the world today, but if I spend 40 hours a week making music/games/programs, then why should someone be able to take all that work for free without compensating me? Why shouldn't the information on a CD be property?

Re:Go sweden go!

[Chosen Reject]

I'm not saying they don't deserve to be compensated in some way for their "hard effort"

You may not be, but the original poster who said, "entertainment should be free" is saying that, and that is where this all comes from.

As far as productive goes, you can look the definition up for yourself.

I did. By that, I would say anyone in the entertainment business is productive.

But what I'm refering to as being unproductive is its value in the economy. To put it in very simple terms for you, it doesn't make anyones job easier.

That's what I was asking; what it means to you. If you mean in terms of economy, you must think that the music and movies, and games industries of billions of dollars each are totally unproductive to the economy. Weird. I would think all that money floating around and people with jobs, etc., would be healthy for the economy. Also, maybe you think that people are mindless automatons, but most of us after working all day like to have some form of entertainment to relax the brain, be it movies, TV, music, books, or even, for some, coding or math or time with family. It makes us able to keep going with life, psychologically. Sounds productive to me.

And as for the crap, why would you think I'm downloading it?

That was just a general rant to those who bring that up every time we talk about piracy. Specifically you were complaining about it. You said because you think it is worth less than the producers of it think. Let the market decide. I agree most of it is crap. But a lot of people disagree with you and I. $Insert_band_here didn't sell a million albums because everyone thought it was crap.

There is so much already out there that one person can't say they have seen it all. So, why do we need more?

There are also so many websites that could fall under the same category. The same with math books. The same with businesses that make software. Why do we need more? Because someone finds a need and fills it. Or thinks they can do better. Another poster to your comment said that there was a lot of good entertainmentin the 1200's and then asked why we didn't stop then. You replied that that wasn't what you were saying. Then what is that you are saying? Because we have decades of entertainment we should stop, but not because there are centuries of it? Are you saying that the stuff from the '50s isn't any different than the stuff now? Would you say Elvis and Linkin Park make the same stuff? What are you trying to say?

As far as the real job thing goes, if you don't get it by now, i don't know how to explain it to you any clearer, i'm sorry.

AFAICS, you haven't talked about what a real job is. You haven't made anything any clearer. Again, if we look at it from a pure economic standpoint, any job that creates money is a "real" job. Thus entertainment is just as "real" as the job that demands a suit and tie and 8-5 hours. Please explain what you think is a "real" job. I'm just curious to know.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Braino420]

I'm not saying anything should be free. I'm not talking about necessities either. I'm not saying entertainment has no value. All I'm saying is that people in the entertainment industry should not expect to be making big bucks (as a very small portion are). People should create and be involved in entertainment because that's what they like and makes them feel good, not because it's going to make them money. It just makes me sick when i see some pro baseball player or some big industry bitching because they aren't making all the money they should be because the people who don't make nearly as much as them doing productive work for a living can't pay for it.

As for big budget movies and games, doesn't most of that money go into special affects and good looks and less into content and originality? I think so, which is why, in many cases, the small independant groups end up making it big. because they have more originality and are more about content, which is much cheaper than flashy graphics. Sadly, it's a vicious cycle where they end up churning out the same thing but with flashy graphics that they can now afford because they made it big.

My post was obviously very misunderstood. I should have been clearer.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Cerebus]

More relevant is this. Corps pay about 1/5th less taxes as a percentage of income. If they want to be treated like people, shouldn't they be taxed like people?

Re:Go sweden go!

[Rycross]

So if person A told person B all about your patterns, say bank account, PIN, Credit Card #, name, etc... Thats ok? OK, not really a good analogy, but lets face it, what you are saying is that if a person works long and hard hours to produce something useful or that people enjoy, then it is ok for people to take what that person has done and not give him any sort of compensation for it. Thats something that I don't swallow.

If I spent tons of money and man hours producing widget A, and then another company went and produced widget A without having to spend all that money and manpower, thus undercutting me and running me out of business, is that OK? If its OK, then why should I bother to develop widget A in the first place? If I want to write a game, and its ok for someone to take my work and give it away for free, then why should I write that game in the first place? No doubt there will be people who do it simply for the love of it, but the net result is that you've dramatically reduced output and quality.

In my view, reducing music and programs to mere numbers and patterns is sort of a red herring. A lot of things can be reduced to simple things. You, for example, are a collection of chemicals arranged in such a way that you form a thinking human being. But in the end you are a bunch of chemicals. Why shouldn't I be able to own that lump of chemicals that make you up, or destroy it? You're just matter in chemicals, so it shouldn't matter, right?

Re:Go sweden go!

[Hrvat]

Consider this. I spend years perfecting my own style of play, practicing performaces, writing my own music until I make one just right. That ONE song or album might be good enough to attract a large audience. This ONE song or album must provide enough revenue to feed me and house me and clothe me so I have more/enough time that I can produce another song that does not suck. Contrary to popular opinion it takes a lot of time and work to create a good piece of music.

For IP rights in general... what if you had a great idea. Something that could improve the company/neighborhood/whatever enormously. You describe it to your friend. The friend goes and implements the idea (never telling anyone that it was your idea in the first place) and gets promotion/admiration in neighborhood/whatever, whereas you are left holding your hat. Under your rules, that is perfectly ok. Someone else went and profited off your idea.

Also, recording performances and copying official recordings are different beasts. In most cases the bands will allow bootlegs. The quality is usually not the greatest and they made all the cash they could off that PARTICULAR performance. Official recording is there for one reason. The band made a studio performance, probably over many takes, in order to give THE BEST POSSIBLE PERFORMANCE (that could be argued, but that is usually the intention). This is one unique performance that was specificaly meant for people to listen on their portables. Considering that concerts usually don't make much money but are often just de-facto advertisments for the CDs, that is the only opportunity for the band to actually make money.

Re:Go sweden go!

[John Newman]

YOU have a choice whether or not to buy the album. If enough people thought the price point was unfair, they wouldn't buy, and the price would go down. Enough people think the price point is fair to keep it there.

So the fact that this never happens means...what? If sales go down, they blame piracy, not the product. If sales are disppointing, they never, never lower prices. In fact, they have a long history of brawling with retailers who tried to sell at discounts (The Wiz, anyone?). There is no stratification of price to match supply and demand - high-demand and low-demand recordings are sold at essentially identical prices. If anything, low-demand usually cost more.

The music industry does not obey the usual rules of economics. This might be for structural reasons, since they have an effective monolpoly over any given artist (no competing suppliers) and much of the demand is organized by artist. Or it might be that the music industry is a corrupt oligopoly that buys legislation and bullies opponent (including artists themselves) to ensure perpetual profits. Or some mix of the two. But it's patently absurd to condescendingly say that Econ 101 still applies to them.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Rycross]

I'm not saying anything should be free. I'm not talking about necessities either. I'm not saying entertainment has no value. All I'm saying is that people in the entertainment industry should not expect to be making big bucks (as a very small portion are). People should create and be involved in entertainment because that's what they like and makes them feel good, not because it's going to make them money. It just makes me sick when i see some pro baseball player or some big industry bitching because they aren't making all the money they should be because the people who don't make nearly as much as them doing productive work for a living can't pay for it.

Ah then I misunderstood your agument. Well, the fact of the matter is that these players and industry executives are rich because people are willing to pay for what they offer. I know that you say entertainers shouldn't expect payment, and I certainly agree with that: noone is oblidged to pay a person for anything. But I disagree with the notion that people should be able to take the work of others and distribute it for free, against that person's wishes.

As for big budget movies and games, doesn't most of that money go into special affects and good looks and less into content and originality?

Not just special effects, but things like studios, quality actors, and technology to remaster and whatnot. I've found that the vast majority of independant works are of low quality, not only in special effects (some people do like their entertainment to be pretty), but in quality of acting and believability. Lets face it, I'm not going to be immersed into a sci fi show that takes place in some kids garage; thats not quality entertainment. So you need sets, and special effects for the immersion.

I think so, which is why, in many cases, the small independant groups end up making it big. because they have more originality and are more about content, which is much cheaper than flashy graphics. Sadly, it's a vicious cycle where they end up churning out the same thing but with flashy graphics that they can now afford because they made it big.

Many cases? I've found that almost all the time, small independant groups put out products that are of a much lower quality than large producers. Independant films can succeed despite the limitations by being artsy, and games can succeed despite the limitations through good game play.

I've found almost all the independant works out there are crap. Speaking from experience in being a hobbyist game developer, being independant barely helps with original ideas at all. Almost every idea I've ever heard for a game is to take some popular game and add one or two mildly original features. Heck, thats what most of my game ideas are too. Thats what professional game developers do anyway (and its one reason why professional game developers don't take unsolicited game ideas).

Special effects and high budgets don't necessarily mean higher quality and more immersion, but on average they do. There is obviously a demand for them, if people continue to pay.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Artifakt]

"What I don't like doing is handing over 25.99 for a cd, and having 23.99 go to a label, .50 to a another schmuck, and then .50 to the musician."

You're pretty close to hitting the nail on the head right there, although I'm going to argue for a little bit tighter definitions.
The other smuck may be a songwriter, or at least the guy who came up with the nice album cover art, or a good audio engineer. All of these involve someone adding value to what's sold, and deserve compensation. You can treat this like you're paying them as part of a team effort, or pay the musician and let him or her treat those people as sub-contractors. Either way, that's likely to amount to about the same total.

This is why information doesn't want to be free (in the economic sense). Figure the two 50 cent sums, plus 23 cents for physical costs, and a CD 'ought' to cost at least $1.23 wholesale, and about 25-40% more for a retailer (Distributers costs and profits), and about 25-40% more than that (retailer's costs and profits). Downloading your own ought to save you at least the retailers markup, and your distribution costs (for an internet connection), should be less than your share of an old style distributer's costs (for warehouses and trucks, etc.). Net distribution shouldn't save you the physical media part of costs, if you burn it to a CD. (in fact, economies of scale say you can't possibly get blank CDs and a burner as cheap as a pressing house can mint CDs on a commercial scale). So right now, the information still has a base cost of at least 1.10 or so.
        But for all the people who point out this fact one way or the other, there's another implication:
        The Artist and those assistants or colaborators who contibute to the value of the information have a right to their compensation, agreed. Note that there's no right for a distributer or retailer to make a profit. If they have a contract that guarentees the presser won't wholesale to anyone else, or will ship all goods via distributer X, that's what the law used to treat as a vertical monopoly, and far from being a right protected by copyright law, is supposed to be illegal when it results in barriers to other people entering the trade. The difference between the average 17.50 for a CD (which i'll set lower than the 25.99 you're apparently paying where you live) and a reasonable amount to include distribution and retail, (say about $3.50), is entirely derived from monopoly price fixing agreements.
        It doesn't matter whether we agree with each other's exact numbers or not. Even if someone is prepared to argue that the industry enjoys markups for distribution 10 to 15 times other industries without them having colluded in any way, that part of the CD's costs still isn't from copyright law at all, and shouldn't be protected by copyright law, at all. Most of use figure that it not only shouldn't be protected, but is actually criminal and should be opposed by act of government, but if we are wrong on that point, that still doesn't prove that the businesses that are involved as distribution, and charge for such things as promotion or distribution and even for production of the physical copy, have any right to be involved in cases that hinge upon the artist's copyrights.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Rycross]

If they want to be treated like people, shouldn't they be taxed like people?

I don't think they should be treated like people even if they are taxed like them. I actually found the figures surprising, since I've been of a mindset that corporations payed far more in taxes than people.

But then again, the income that a corporation makes ends up in the hands of people anyway, whether its the shareholders, an employee, or the rich CEO, so its also a bit disingenious to claim that the money doesn't get taxed that much. In one view, its getting taxed twice (once when comming into the corporation, and again when it flows to the individual).

Re:Go sweden go!

[DemingBuiltMyHotRod]

Oh boy, you obviously haven't taken any sort of class in economics. First of all, $20 for a CD is extortion to you. There are people out there who feel that $20 is a perfectly acceptable price point, and a fair trade for that CD. They're called customers. Its(sic) basic supply and demand. More to the point, while CD's are cheap in terms of reproduction and raw materials, you have to pay to develop the content which actually goes on that CD. Studios, artists, producers, advertisement, instruments, etc are not cheap.

Oh, boy, you took Econ 101, but didn't bother to pay attention to anything more than supply and demand. You appear to be confusing Fair Trade - the market price of a good or service in a market free of unfair constraints and Market Value - what a good or service actually sells for on the open market. By your logic if I held a gun to your head and asked for, and received, $1,000 for sparing your life, $1,000 would be the Fair Trade value of your life because we made the deal. Clearly your misunderstanding of Fair Trade does not take into account what is best for society at large - the raison d'etra for any concept of fair pricing.

What the music companies are doing is not nearly as dramatic as holding a gun to your head, however the logic describing how they distort pricing is similar. The record companies use their monopoly power to inflate the price of their content. On each CD they are stealing from society the difference between the Fair Trade price (something close to the minimum dollar value for which artists would be willing to accept and still provide the same performances) and the market price. Because the difference isn't great for any one consumer, and the litigation costs to recover the monies illegally charged are way out of proportion for a $10 purchase, these customers are have little recourse to paying extra for each purchase. Just because people are willing to pay the price that the record companies illegally charge, doesn't mean that they aren't stealing from society to line their own pockets.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Rycross]

So the fact that this never happens means...what? If sales go down, they blame piracy, not the product. If sales are disppointing, they never, never lower prices. In fact, they have a long history of brawling with retailers who tried to sell at discounts (The Wiz, anyone?). There is no stratification of price to match supply and demand - high-demand and low-demand recordings are sold at essentially identical prices. If anything, low-demand usually cost more.

Last I had checked, the RIAA's sales remained rather consistent with economic trends. Never did I say that I agreed with them for blaming piracy. In fact I am no lover of the RIAA. I was countering the point that the person I was posting to felt that they were somehow owed an album at a certain price, or for attending a concert, or that the bands were somehow forcing him to buy an album. Even with the pricing arguments and piracy, it is still a person's choice whether or not to buy a CD. The RIAA can, in no way, force you to pay for a CD. If you don't like the price, then you don't buy it. However, I don't feel that using the price as an excuse to download a CD is justifiable either.

The music industry does not obey the usual rules of economics. This might be for structural reasons, since they have an effective monolpoly over any given artist (no competing suppliers) and much of the demand is organized by artist. Or it might be that the music industry is a corrupt oligopoly that buys legislation and bullies opponent (including artists themselves) to ensure perpetual profits. Or some mix of the two. But it's patently absurd to condescendingly say that Econ 101 still applies to them.

No they don't follow the usual rules of economics. First, I was trying to simplify my argument. Breaking out the economics textbook doesn't tend to go well in internet debates. Second, despite the fact that they are a oligopoly doesn't really effect my argument, which is that people are willingly buying their media at the price they set. Therefore, its not extortion, nor do many people consider the prices to be unfair. If they did consider it unfair, then they wouldn't buy it, as music is in no way, shape, or form a necessity in life. If we were arguing about food or clean water, there might be a point to it.

Moreover, I was arguing that the band has the right to decide how they want to market and sell their music, and how they want to run their concerts. The poster acted as if a concert ticket somehow magically gave him a right to having a free CD, whereas I pointed out that the concert ticket was for the performance only, and if he didn't like that then maybe he shouldn't have bought the ticket. Obviously, attending the performance was important enough to him to spend the money.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Rycross]

Regardless of whether or not they inflate the prices, a music CD is still not a necessity in life, and therefor noone is forced to buy the product. Say they priced the CD at $100. Would anyone still buy it? Or would they lose money and go out of business?

My point still stands. When someone buys music, it is completely by consent. If they are buying a CD for a certain amount, then that is becuase they believe the CD to be worth that price. If the price was raised too high, then the demand for that CD would go down, noone would buy it, and they would be forced to drop their prices to make money.

In fact, I did study monopolies in economics 101. Demand still does have an effect in a monopoly situation, especially one in which the product is completely unnecessary. Monopolies can set their own prices, but in cases such of this, they still cannot control the demand. I also learned that the only fair prices are those that are equal to or under that which you are willing to pay (the utility of the item). If you are willing to pay for something, then it has a utility equal to or greater than that amount of money. You aren't getting ripped off.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Terrasque]

What I don't like doing is handing over 25.99 for a cd, and having 23.99 go to a label, .50 to a another schmuck, and then .50 to the musician.

Take a look at http://magnatune.com/ - lots of good artists there. And if you buy a cd, half of the cash goes directly to the artist.

http://magnatune.com/info/why is also an interesting read.

My personal favorites there are AntiGuru and Cargo Cult (And, IMHO, Dufay Collective also have a few good tunes, but that's a bit more special)

Re:Go sweden go!

[Braino420]

haha, ya, i guess you're right about the independant films. I was watching stargate or some other sci-fi show with a friend of mine (it's not really my thing), and they used a keg for a prop, trying to make it look like something that would be in a medical room, and a pressure washer as a gun. laughed my ass off.

what i had in mind was half-life mods. DoD and CS were made independantly and ended up cutting deals with Valve. There are many other that didn't make it big, but i still consider them fun to play, ie natural selection. what i didn't like about the new versions of CS and DoD are mainly just graphic overhalls using the source engine. Now, i thought it was worth the dough and i gave them their money. but some people expected a little more than just that but they still wanted to play with everyone else that was moving on, so they downloaded the game(prob wouldn't work with Steam, but this is just an example). I can't blame them for that. I guess that's kinda my point, i payed full price for x game, they come out with x game + y (y being x) and expect me to pay what i payed for the original. it's upsetting, and some people can't justify paying that amount. Some people may think thats ok, but i find it worth bitching about. i like paying people for their ideas and creativity, and not some equation that gets applied to everything original that rakes in the most money for the publisher.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Braino420]

y being LESS THAN x, heh

Re:Go sweden go!

[Rycross]

You are wrong. CD sales have plummeted, remember? That's why the RIAA is suing file sharing? OH YEAH - because it's been pretty universally agreed upon that 50 minutes of random music is not worth 20 dollars.

I thought the battle cry was that CD sales were doing better than ever, especially considering economic conditions. I remember there being several slashdot stories, along with a lot posters claiming that it was obvious piracy would improve sells. Do you have any sources?

If it was universally agreed upon that the music wasn't worth the money, then the CDs wouldn't be selling. The music companies are still in business, so obviously there are enough people somewhere who feel that the music is worth $20 to keep them in business.

All your economics classes are taught to you by a power elite driven to never upset the system. This crap you spout was programmed into you by your country and your cheap education.

Wow, just, wow. I'm sorry but university professors are hardly powerful or elite. In fact, a lot of my professors would probably hate the RIAA just as much as I do. That doesn't change facts, which is kinda what economics is based on. As far as my education, it was hardly cheap. I went to a university that, when I entered, was 4th in the nation for engineering. I hear their business school is extremely good as well.

USE YOUR BRAIN.

I'm using mine just fine. When you spout that I'm being programmed by my country (seems to insinuate that my country is evil), and that I'm being deceived by wealthy elite, when the people I learned from were neither wealthy nor elite, it makes me believe you aren't using yours.

I understand you hate the RIAA. I'm no big fan of them either. But I'm not going to sit here and pretend that 1) they're somehow forcing people to buy their music and that 2) people don't believe a CD is worth $20 when a lot of people obviously do believe that.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Znork]

Ok, phrase it like this instead; intellectual monopolies should not be allowed.

"It's like stating all car repairs should be free!"

No, actually it's like stating anyone should be allowed to fix a car.

You're confusing the right to charge for your work with monopoly rights allowing a certain party to control what other people do with their property.

Re:Go sweden go!

[homer_ca]

"You are paying for the concert, not the CD. And Metallica has a right to do whatever they want with their property and their events."

Your statement presumes that copyright is an absolute property right, which it is not. It's a limited property right that has been legislated, rather arbitrarily, to the point where it resembles an absolute property right. However, it still has limits. They can't charge me for quietly humming one of their melodies. Under the copyright regime of the original founding fathers, Metallica's first album would already be public domain (and foreign works like Ozzy would have no copyrights at all). If you want to go back to the good old days of the 19th Century before income taxes, it's only fair to roll back copyright laws to the 19th Century terms too.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Rycross]

Your statement presumes that copyright is an absolute property right, which it is not. It's a limited property right that has been legislated, rather arbitrarily, to the point where it resembles an absolute property right. However, it still has limits.

I was arguing based on copyright law. Paying for a performance lets you see that performance. Paying for a CD gives you that CD, and a right to copy it and modify it for personal use, but not for distribution. For the record, I think people should be able to make recordings of concerts. I'm not sure how I would feel about the distribution of recordings of concerts.

They can't charge me for quietly humming one of their melodies. Under the copyright regime of the original founding fathers, Metallica's first album would already be public domain (and foreign works like Ozzy would have no copyrights at all). If you want to go back to the good old days of the 19th Century before income taxes, it's only fair to roll back copyright laws to the 19th Century terms too.

I agree. I want the laws to go back before copyright extension. I think it was 20 years?

Re:Go sweden go!

[PsiPsiStar]

True, but bear in mind that copyrights and patents are not natural rights as determined by the founders. They were supposed to be just enough to compensate their authors for creation of the work. With the extension of copyright duration, the fundamental nature of copyright has changed. The original intent was to allow authors to continue to support themselves while putting creative works into the public domain. Now the point is to simply compensate the owners of copyrights, without thought for the public domain.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Jherek Carnelian]

Most of our tax revenue comes from those corporations anyway, you know

You are so wrong.

In 2003, personal income tax accounted for almost an order of magnitude more US federal revenue than corporate income tax. (8.7x times more to be precise)
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTem plate.cfm?Docid=407&Topic2id=90

More to the point, those "huuuuuuge" companies provide jobs and livelihood to a lot of people.

You can just as easily say that the people provide manpower and the livelihood to all corporations. The big difference is that without corps, the people would continue to exist but without people the corps would be nothing.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Znork]

"So if person A told person B all about your patterns, say bank account, PIN, Credit Card #"

You know, if you dont want your PIN spread around you should probably keep it to yourself.

"if a person works long and hard hours to produce something useful or that people enjoy, then it is ok for people to take what that person has done and not give him any sort of compensation for it"

Of course not. That person should be able to charge however much they wish. However, that does not mean they should be allowed to then prevent the purchaser from doing whatever they want with their newly purchased property.

"thus undercutting me and running me out of business, is that OK?"

That's the fundamental reason that the free market works; the creation of wealth through the ever increasing efficiency of production. So, yes, that's the way it's supposed to work. Unless you're opposed to or dont believe in competition or free market capitalism in general.

"If its OK, then why should I bother to develop widget A in the first place?"

Because it gives you a competetive advantage? Because it solves a particular problem you were having?

There are many reasons, but in the end it comes down to this; are we as a society satisfied with the rate of development we're getting without added incentives? If we're not satisfied with the rate we need to create a system that creates extra incentives for development. And if you start there you'll find that granting monopolies is one system that is extrordinarily inappropriate and creates such effects as slower adoption of new technology, creates legal overhead for any combination tech, sometimes even making it impossible to produce, creates lockin effects on the market, diverts resources from research into marketing, etc.

The IP system is in its essence a form of taxation/subsidy system, in the form of monopoly rent on certain items, comparable to other product taxes in economic effects. As for what the public gets for those hidden taxes, it has got to be the absolutely worst performing and undemocratic subsidy/corporate welfare scheme ever invented.

Re:Go sweden go!

[iminplaya]

Remember, making that cd you listen to, or that mp3 you just downloaded, took time, took money and is someones lively hood.

Then we should have to pay to watch and listen to commercials. They take time and money to make also. One the other hand, most people in the front office are paid when the contract is signed before the first frame is shot. The others get paid when the work is in the can, or during production. That work in the can is what promotes the product actually being sold. I make a demo of my work so that people can see it and hire me if they like it. Then I will get paid for performing work. Why are we treating the musicians differently? All those CDs on the shelf are demos. They are ads promoting the band in question. This is so we can pay them when they perform work. Otherwise I will expect payment for all those demos I released.

Re:Go sweden go!

[homer_ca]

"I was arguing based on copyright law."

I know copyright gives the author specific rights, and I agree with you on the facts. It was more your phrasing. When you say "Metallica has the right to do whatever they want with their property" it sounds like an absolute property right, like they own the song. Metallica doesn't own the song or performance. They own the exclusive right to make copies of their songs and performances (minus fair use).

Re:Go sweden go!

[PsiPsiStar]

A few things;

1. I think the pricing of CDs would take care of itself if the music industry couldn't monopolize radio and essentially hype its own product 24-7.

2. Copyright is not a natural right, but an artificial one granted for the purpose of encouraging artists to move creative works into the public domain. Creatives works are making more money than ever now. So why was the length of copyright increased.

3. "Information wants to be free" is not, in my mind synonymous with "information should be free." It's a reminder that there are huge economic costs in terms of enforcement and lost opportunity costs in preventing the freeflow of information.

Tax refunds are not taking away money from corporations, not giving them money. Most of our tax revenue comes from those corporations anyway, you know.

I realize that there are some benefits to tax breaks, but not only does it seem like a subversion of law to give breaks if there isn't a clear and immediate economic benefit to the community, but it seems like a subversion of law. Why shouldn't all people get equal treatment from the government? If the RIAA didn't donate huge amounts of money to the government, I might be more inclined to see Gov't favoring of the music industry as a mutually beneficial relationship, as opposed to a straightforward conflict of interest.

Personally, while I don't think CD prices are over the top, I wouldn't buy any music if I knew the RIAA got a cut.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Cerebus]

In one view, its getting taxed twice (once when comming into the corporation, and again when it flows to the individual).

Yeah, in the incredibly wrong-headed view.

We don't tax *money*, we tax *people*. If we taxed money, the Treasury Department could hold back a percentage coming off the presses and that would be the end of it.

Why that won't work is left as an exercise for the reader.

Re:Go sweden go!

[antiMStroll]

"It's like stating all car repairs should be free!"

Not at all, but that's beside the point. The choice is between free movement of information and federally regulated control to support an existing business model. Eminem doesn't like that the data he distributes is ease to copy and distrbute, don't release in that form. Ludicrous is demanding federal regulation or levies on the use of blank media and bandwidth to preserve a revenue stream on a product that feeds no poor, cures no diseases, neither helps or benefits anyone else in society save Eminem's pocket book and accountant. Cost benefit analysis, RIAA members lose. Society's a balance of interests and the only reason they've gotten this far is the RIAA's interest in campaign financing. The system's broken.

Re:Go sweden go!

[PsiPsiStar]

Your argument would make more sense if music was a necessity rather than a luxury good.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

A song isnt a commodity any more than a haynes manual is. My stereo is producing the sound.

A song is a commodity less than a haynes manual. Anybody can tell you how to fix your VW bus (you do drive one of those, right?). When people want to hear a song, they usually want to hear something in particular. Also, the fact remains: your stereo reproduces the song, but the CD tells it what to reproduce.

OF course you need to have copyright to give respect to people, but ideally I shouldnt have to pay someone to sing their song, tell their story, or describe how to fix a car. If i could make perfect copies of the aleternator of my car, i shouldnt have to pay anyone to do it.

Copyright isn't about respect so much as control. People do own songs that they write and yes, you must pay them for every public performance of those songs. If you could make perfect copies of an alternator, then yes, the same issues would apply.

slavery is control.

We tried communism - doesn't work on any sort of scale.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Rycross]

You know, if you dont want your PIN spread around you should probably keep it to yourself.

Ah but what if my bank gave away my account information? Would that be ok, if I signed no agreement that they keep my information private?

Of course not. That person should be able to charge however much they wish. However, that does not mean they should be allowed to then prevent the purchaser from doing whatever they want with their newly purchased property. That's the fundamental reason that the free market works; the creation of wealth through the ever increasing efficiency of production. So, yes, that's the way it's supposed to work. Unless you're opposed to or dont believe in competition or free market capitalism in general.

I mostly agree with your assessment, but things like entertainment are different. The only reason to make entertainment is soley for enjoyment. There is no particular problem solved or competitive advantage gained.

Moreover, in the case of entertainment or computer programs, they are not undercutting through better production or efficiency. They are undercutting by taking something that someone else spent a lot of money to produce and simply giving it out for a lower price. Thats not competition, from my point of view.

As far as being able to do what you want with that product, I agree to a point. The problem is that digital media isn't really like anything else in history. I should be able to make copies of any media I own in any format, but once I start distributing that media, I am essentially taking someone else's hard work, and undercutting them on price so that they lose money.

The IP system is in its essence a form of taxation/subsidy system, in the form of monopoly rent on certain items, comparable to other product taxes in economic effects. As for what the public gets for those hidden taxes, it has got to be the absolutely worst performing and undemocratic subsidy/corporate welfare scheme ever invented.

In fact, copyright as it was when it was conceived, was supposed to be for the public's benefit. The idea being that you let people make some money off of their works for a little bit of time, then give it to the public for use and general consumption. It seemed to work pretty well, until corporations lobbied to get them extended to ridiculous lengths.

The way I see it, in the absense of copyright, the only reason to actually create things would be for the love of it. That doesn't sound bad, but you are effectively limited in what you can create if you cannot recoup your costs. Some forms of entertainment would come out better than others. Just look at the indie game scene to see what I'm talking about.

So whats the solution? I don't know. I certainly don't think that copyright infringment is moral, as people are trying to make it out to be. However I try to be practical, and I don't think that digital media can necessarily survive based on current business models.

Re:Go sweden go!

[NichG]

If I spend forty hours a week painting graffiti on public property, why should someone be able to just go and look at it without paying me? Or, if I spend forty hours a week establishing a cult, why should somebody be able to un-brainwash some of those people I've spent so much effort brainwashing, or ...

Yes, I realize these aren't great analogies, but my point is that just become someone spends time and effort on something doesn't mean they deserve to have everything related to it go exactly as they desire. If I posess an object, it doesn't matter if I spent one minute or one year coming into posession of it, the law protects me from theft the same regardless. If I write a song, and someone sneaks into my house and steals the sheet music, well, thats one thing.

But if I play it to someone, either for a fee or for free, then that information is theirs to do with as they will. They can think about it, they can replay it in their head, they can hum it. And, if they have the right equipment, I don't see why burning a copy of it to a CD is any different. They certainly aren't depriving me of my own physical copy of my song, so it isn't theft. And I don't buy that just because I made that thing, automatically all of the income I could _potentially_ make from it is my property, before I've even made it. That screams 'entitlement' to me.

If I decide to give away a multimillion dollar idea by accident or intentionally, I don't see that the law should step in and give me a stick to use to get it back. If I've told a friend, sold it to someone untrustworthy, etc, then its on my head when it gets spread around. If you sell a CD to a customer who is going to copy it, regardless of what the current laws says about that, I see it as the same deal. You've given them the ability to make duplicates, just as if you had sung the song to someone with a recording device secreted in their vest or the auditory equivalent of a photographic memory and a lot of instrumental skill. Just because one is easy and the other is hard doesn't in my mind make them different from a fundamental perspective, and I certainly think my right to do with the stuff in my head what I will should trump any legal monopoly on content.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Rycross]

Point. You're completely correct.

In addition, if Metallica wants to charge $10 for the concert, and not give away any CD's, but rather charge for them seperately, that is their right to do so regardless of whether they have the copyright to the song or not (if someone else owns the copyright, thats obviously a different matter). The only difference is that, if they don't have a copyright, then someone else can sell the CD's too. But the choice is still up to Metallica as to what that concert ticket price includes.

Re:Go sweden go!

[alan.briolat]

25.99 for a cd, and having 23.99 go to a label, .50 to a another schmuck, and then .50 to the musician.

So, dare I ask where the other 1.00 goes??

Re:Go sweden go!

[Rycross]

1. I think the pricing of CDs would take care of itself if the music industry couldn't monopolize radio and essentially hype its own product 24-7.

If you take the view that this sort of behavior is keeping independant artists under the radar, this would seem accurate.

2. Copyright is not a natural right, but an artificial one granted for the purpose of encouraging artists to move creative works into the public domain. Creatives works are making more money than ever now. So why was the length of copyright increased.

I wasn't trying to say it was a natural right, but it obviously came out that way. Regardless of whether its an artificial or natural right, its a right regardless, and in my opinion it would be a good one to have if it weren't so broken at the moment. Its broken, in my opinion, because of that last point. I agree with you, its ridiculous that copyrights are so long. They should go back to the normal length. Even shorter for software, in my opinion. 5 years should be more than enough to make any money off of music, video games, or movies.

3. "Information wants to be free" is not, in my mind synonymous with "information should be free." It's a reminder that there are huge economic costs in terms of enforcement and lost opportunity costs in preventing the freeflow of information.

Yeah they're different, but I was responding to people who were arguing that entertainment should literally be free, as in beer. In other words, that its ok to copy music because they shouldn't be charging for it anyways.

I realize that there are some benefits to tax breaks, but not only does it seem like a subversion of law to give breaks if there isn't a clear and immediate economic benefit to the community, but it seems like a subversion of law. Why shouldn't all people get equal treatment from the government? If the RIAA didn't donate huge amounts of money to the government, I might be more inclined to see Gov't favoring of the music industry as a mutually beneficial relationship, as opposed to a straightforward conflict of interest.

Well, I wasn't trying to make any sort of judgement on taxing corporations, just to point out that not taxing isnt the same as giving money. I'm not sure that equal treatment from the government is in everyone's best interest. The rich, after all, have a higher percentage of their income taxed, and most people consider that a good thing, even though its unequal treatment. As far as corporations, its a mixed bag. Taxing them more might just make them move jobs out of country. I don't know because I'm not an expert on these sorts of things. I just know its not black and white.

Re:Go sweden go!

[StopSayingYouSir]

Since music and art have existed for all of human history, I can feel pretty comfortable that it will exist long after the demise of the *AA's.

Equivocation. Yes, music and art have existed for all of human history. But SOUND RECORDINGS have not. Copyright predates sound recordings.

More to the point, the only reason that copyright exists in the first place is because technology made it faster, easier, and cheaper for unscrupulous types to make accurate copies of creative works (books, at first). This has not changed; in fact, copying is easier than ever. This is an argument for copyright, not against it.

Re:Go sweden go!

[PsiPsiStar]

The rich, after all, have a higher percentage of their income taxed, and most people consider that a good thing, even though its unequal treatment.

Good point. I guess I should have said 'making exceptions on a case by case basis' as opposed to employing certain universal standards.

If we're going to give tax exemptions for businesses, it'd be nice if they standardized it according to certain criteria for all businesses rather than negotiating it on a business by business basis with those businesses who are big enough to show up on the political radar.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Dionysus]

You know, if you dont want your PIN spread around you should probably keep it to yourself.

What happened to 'information wants to be free'?

Re:Go sweden go!

[Tim C]

Entertainment is simply entertainment and is not productive in any aspect.

Man cannot live by bread alone, and certainly not by work alone. Entertainment is one of the things that help make life worth living, and a live devoid of entertainment would be that much poorer.

Not to mention modern pop music is pure CRAP.

Ah; you don't like it, therefore it is worthless, therefore

a) it should not be produced
b) it should not be paid for

Different people have different tastes. I don't like pop music either, but I recognise that it still has value. Besides, what makes you think that pop music is all that's being created? There is a wealth of music in other styles and genres being created all the time.

Re:Go sweden go!

[StopSayingYouSir]

"thus undercutting me and running me out of business, is that OK?"

That's the fundamental reason that the free market works; the creation of wealth through the ever increasing efficiency of production. So, yes, that's the way it's supposed to work. Unless you're opposed to or dont believe in competition or free market capitalism in general.

Whoa, put down the crack pipe there, son. "Efficiency of production" does not mean "hijacking someone else's R&D." There's nothing wrong with undercutting your competition if you come up with a better product or if you find your own way to produce it more cheaply. But that's not what the GP was talking about. He's talking about the situation where person A spends valuable time and money on research and development (cf. writing and recording a song), and then person B comes along and starts using that information to produce an identical (or fundamentally similar) product. Person A and person B now have the same product on the market, but person A had to pay a higher cost to get it there. Person B has not innovated anything; he hasn't made a better product, nor has he found a cheaper way to produce it on his own, yet he has an advantage because he has no R&D costs to repay. This is exactly the opposite of the way things ought to be. It shouldn't be hard to see how allowing this situation to occur would stifle innovation. Why pay for R&D when you can simply wait around to piggyback off of someone else's hard work? This is why we have intellectual property laws.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Rycross]

You mention that the theft of an item is protected by law, but so is copyright. You're right in that creating something doesn't necessarily mean that you deserve to have things turn out how you like. Your examples, however, are bad, as they are examples of property owned by the public, and a right intrinsic to human beings (to think how they wish).

I do not think its either fair or right that someone who creates a song or a video game can have someone take that and distribute it against his wishes. Hearing a song and having it in your head is entirely different than being able to record it. Humming it is entirely different than making a perfect duplicate of the recording. You are able to hear it in your head and hum it by virtue of someone spending their own time to create it. I don't think its right that person should get nothing in return.

However, I'd argue that copyright has a valid reason to exist. The goal of it is to promote creation of art for the public, by giving creators the ability to control distribution for a set time. The law has been twisted and corrupted by corporations, but I believe that we are better with it than without it. I'd rather see people come up with new art and entertainment and get paid, then people deciding its not worth it to come up with new stuff because it will just get copied by a lot of people.

And yes, I know there was art way before copyright laws. But it was also incredibly hard to copy said art. Copyright laws came into existence for a reason.

Overall, the justification seems to be that if you create something you should not expect any sort of control or returns from it. Well, a lot of people think that if you create something, then you should have some control over how its distributed, and be able to make money from it for a small length of time. Thats why copyright came into being. In the same way that a lot of people thought that if you own an object, then you deserve to keep that object, and so came up with laws against theft.

Also note that the original essence of copyright was that these things were basically owned by the public, with the creator only having a monopoly on distribution. I think it would be good to go back to this sort of copyright.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Hrvat]

The reason for the existence of copyright is to protect the artist and give them a means to survive and distribute art to multitudes of people as opposed to the rich. Although the Renaissance is full of great art and music, the great majority of those pieces were comissioned, and after they were completed they sat in someone's living room, or were performed at court a few times. Public had travelling minstrels and such, and even they performed for food and lodging.

You did not have the means of copying the content successfully so there was no need for copyright other than for professional reasons (IE Mozart wrote the piece X, not Rossini, etc).

Today, if you want new music to be made, you should pay for it. It's incredibly stupid to think that you're entitled to free music just because you exist. Also, legally, if you buy a CD you don't buy the duplication rights to the song. You buy the right to LISTEN to the song, yourself, in the privacy of your own home.

And, actually, if you give away the multimillion dollar idea, you do have a stick to get it back. It's called patenting the information. As long as you have the proof that you came up with it early (dated notes, etc) you can get the patent on the idea. SELLING the idea is something different. That means you're relinquishing the rights to the idea and giving them to someone else.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Tim C]

Even though its not productive to society,

It keeps millions of people in gainful employment and generates billions of dollars in revenue yearly, and you think it's not productive?

Your standards are a little too high, I think.

Re:Go sweden go!

[kurzweilfreak]

Ever taken a music history class? The earliest music was performed by the church by monks who were funded by the church, a large organization with the resources to support people that would do nothing but write music for them. Later on, in the days of classical composers (Bach, Beethoven, etc...) music was funded by patrons of the arts, rich people who could afford to contract the artists to create music for them. Composers couldn't afford on their own to hire an orchestra to hear their arrangements come to life (didn't have any of those massive orchestral sample libraries that we have today!) and they also had to eat (imagine that!) and it's hard to write a lot of music when you have to get out and work to provide for your family. Those patrons could make a lot of money and prestige by inviting others to come and hear the work that they contracted out for, and the composers got the freedom from having to slave all day just to live so that they could devote their time to their art.

Music and art have existed for quite a long time, and for the most part there was always someone with a lot of money behind the scenes to fund it lest it not exist.

There are alternative distribution methods and organizations out there other than the RIAA, such as Weed Share and Mindawn, one of my personal favorites for offering both lossy and lossless files and no DRM based on the trust to their custmers. Both are great for the independant artist both in terms of the services they offer and compensation artists get from them. While a noble ideal, I fear that there will always be people that just don't give a fuck and want something for nothing and screw anyone else, because no matter how inexpensive or easy you make it to get your music, they only want it for free.

Re:Go sweden go!

[oliverthered]

We tried communism - doesn't work on any sort of scale.

I beg to differ, recent communism was Marxism a particular type of communism. Before that (say 1-2000+ years ago) people lived quite well in communes. The main failing of communist states was corruption not the communism it's self, you don't have to look too far into capitalist states to find corruption.

I think there will start to be serious problems with the capitalist system in the next 20-30 years, especially as the oil starts to run out and the rich finish off taking over the land / world.

Re:Go sweden go!

[oliverthered]

Then we should have to pay to watch and listen to commercial

You do, every time you buy a product advertised on say T.V. you are partly paying for the cost of the commercial.

In the UK was have a TV license that pays for the BBC (instead of the BBC advertising) I think this is far fairer, because every time I buy a product that advertises I have to pay for a number of TV services that I don't even use, at least the the BBC if I don't have a TV I don't have to pay.

Re:Go sweden go!

[oliverthered]

copying a cd and saying, "here, i wrote and recorded/produced/manufactured this"

That's not copyright, that's plagiarism.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Before that (say 1-2000+ years ago) people lived quite well in communes.

Communes aren't terribly large. Note what I said about scale.

I think there will start to be serious problems with the capitalist system in the next 20-30 years, especially as the oil starts to run out and the rich finish off taking over the land / world.

Capitalism isn't a social system, it's an economic one. The US is a somewhat socialist country, we just don't want to admit it.

Re:Go sweden go!

[oliverthered]

If I spent tons of money and man hours producing widget A, and then another company went and produced widget A without having to spend all that money and manpower, thus undercutting me and running me out of business

You not familiar with game theory are you? If you go out of business then so does the person who would want to copy you designs, it's therefore in the interest of the coppier that you make enough money to come up with some more designs.

Re:Go sweden go!

[oliverthered]

Capitalism is just as much as social system as communism, western democracy is just another word for capitalism. And I think all countries are somewhat socialist, especially if they have things like Governments, police, arms that are paid for by the public. (Not some saudi states are payed for by the oil, so their not socilist systems)

Communes aren't terribly large. Note what I said about scale.

But there were a lot of them, all over the world. By scale did you mean population density? I have no problem with the population dropping to 10% of it's current level.

Re:Go sweden go!

[CRiMSON]

Guy behind the counter nasty pot habbit.

Re:Go sweden go!

[NichG]

No, I don't think I'm entitled to free music. But I don't think artists should be entitled to a monopoly on how their creations are used. What I mean is, if no one wants to make music because they can't protect it, I'm willing to live with that as a consequence of removing that protection. And I'm willing to donate my income to support or commission work from artists who I want to encourage. But as part of that, I expect that that work becomes uncontrolled once it is released. Let those who still want to make music do so, and if no one does then so be it.

Yes, I currently do have a stick to get such things as a freely-given multimillion dollar idea or a piece of music I have composed or sourcecode or research or whatever back. That is the sort of law I am arguing against.

Re:Go sweden go!

[periol]

If that link is correct, it is interesting (and completely unsurprising) to note that corporations have paid a smaller and smaller percentage of overall taxes down through the years. The first big jump seems to have showed up right after WWII. I'm sure that's because corporations have been making less and less money through the years.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

western democracy is just another word for capitalism.

No it isn't. Try learning what you're talking about before you spout off

By scale did you mean population density?

I mean the size of a state. If you return to communes, then you return to tribal life.

I have no problem with the population dropping to 10% of it's current level.

I'm sure 90% of the population does.

Re:Go sweden go!

[oliverthered]

No it isn't. Try learning what you're talking about before you spout off

Ok, most of the laws that are passed as a fundamental part of western democracy's (you know ownership and that kinda crap) are capitalist. That's probably why the more modern attempts at communism went with dictators instead of democracies. Not all democracies are capitalist and not all dictatorships are communist, but Western style democracies play very well for capitalist economies.

I mean the size of a state. If you return to communes, then you return to tribal life.

At last, maybe that will cure all the depressed people popping Prozac.

I'm sure 90% of the population does.

You don't have to get rid of anyone, you just have to stop producing new people.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Cerebus]

The rule has always been, and likely always will be, that no-one gets rich--truly rich, the kind of rich that you pass on generation to generation--from wages. The only way to get that kind of rich is from rents--land, minerals, spectrum--anything someone else will pay to use, preferably in perpetuity.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Ok, most of the laws that are passed as a fundamental part of western democracy's (you know ownership and that kinda crap) are capitalist. That's probably why the more modern attempts at communism went with dictators instead of democracies. Not all democracies are capitalist and not all dictatorships are communist, but Western style democracies play very well for capitalist economies.

So what you're saying is that lotsa capitalist countries are also democracies. What I'm saying is that that doesn't make them the same thing.

Re:Go sweden go!

[dwandy]

The earliest music was performed by the church by monks who were funded by the church

wow. so you're suggesting that church monks invented music? Music is a human social interaction, and predates monks, churches and funding.

music was funded by patrons of the arts, rich people who could afford to contract the artists to create music for them. Composers couldn't afford on their own to hire an orchestra

yes, rich people funded the concerts and commissioned all kinds of works of art, and I suspect that rich people will fund art into the future. The 'classics' however, did not write music exclusively on contract, they wrote music b/c they were artists.

and they also had to eat

they also taught music, for which they earned money to eat.

I think you are confusing "music you've heard of" with "music the human race makes/has made". How much music from the African jungle do you have/have you heard? I suspect 'none', yet it exists, and has existed as long as humans have lived there.
imho, the partrons of the past, and riaa of today only ensure advertising $$$ for their specific reasons. The patrons of the past liked the music and paid for it, the riaa makes a profit by selling you the music they feel makes them the most profit.

Re:Go sweden go!

[oliverthered]

I'm saying that the fundamental laws of western 'democracies' tend heavily towards capitalism (Ownership, survival of the fittest), if you look at the Athens democracy or a pure democracy they tend to be closer to Communism (Each to his need and ability).

It would be very hard to setup a communism in the USA, partly because they have made laws and social systems that lean heavily against 'the red commie bastards', if that's not the case then what the hell were they doing during the cold war, making a movie? Some European countries have proportional representation which starts to get a little closer to allowing communism to creep in.

n.b. It doesn't matter what the law is, those in power will always change it to meet their needs, e.g. Hitler, Tony Blair and George Bush.

Re:Go sweden go!

[Znork]

"Would that be ok, if I signed no agreement that they keep my information private?"

That's really mainly a security question; you should probably design a public/private key system for that kind of secrets. It's rather beside the point anyway :).

"but things like entertainment are different."

To an extent, yes. There are however ways you can look at it that are more adapted to the normal economy if you step out of the IP mold.

For example, if you look at music as a performance art, writing new music becomes a competetive advantage. People will go watch a cover band, but I'd pay a lot more to see the original. If you change to that perspective, you suddenly also have a whole new capacity to solve supply/demand problems in the music industry; more artists could recieve income from basically doing cover performances and cover recordings, more fans could see desired music if/when the original band isnt touring everywhere, more musicians could take current music and make their own version of it, etc.

"They are undercutting by taking something that someone else spent a lot of money to produce and simply giving it out for a lower price."

Again, to some extent. The problem is that nobody is actually spending very much money creating the music, and it simply doesnt cost much to create music. Instead, a few major players are using their monopoly power over the music to leverage and recoup ROI from vast investments in marketing and merchandising.

Now, you're right that those investments would simply be undercut, and probably made impossible. However, I'd argue that those investments are not beneficial to the economy as a whole anyway, nor conductive to the actual creation of the art.

Writing, recording and playing music is within the economic reach of pretty much anyone holding a job. The music industry is rife with examples of musicians living off _unprotected_ music; look at the players of classical music. The capacity for worldwide distribution and marketing is _also_ available for anyone holding a job these days.

For sure, paying radio stations to play them, paying for front placement in stores, printing and distributing posters worldwide, paying for music videos, paying for expensive exec habits, paying for round the clock tv-commercials, paying for expensive lobbying campaigns and paying for lawsuits against teenagers may not be within reach of any musician, but are those really investments we need to protect?

"In fact, copyright as it was when it was conceived, was supposed to be for the public's benefit."

Mmm, I used to think so too, but then I read up on the history. It's a very good propaganda line, and looking at the civil law extensions from the french revolution times it's even partly true.

The actual truth is, copyright as it was concieved, was a monopoly granted to the publisher and owner of the printing press by the crown in exchange for censorship control and/or monetary exchange. As the public eventually got very annoyed with this arrangement, and very angry with the monopolies at that point in time, the publishers gauged the situation as unlikely to end up in their favour and came up with and pushed for 'authors rights' instead, which was more politically sound. However, the publishers knew the authors could not afford their own presses, and would be forced to sign exclusive contracts for printing, and after those first 28 years the publishers would be free to print anyway. Which is pretty much similar to what we have today, with the difference being that the authors cant afford the marketing instead, in a market where consumer attention is becoming the scarce commodity, leading to the current situation where the public, the authors and the economy are getting the short end of the stick.

"That doesn't sound bad, but you are effectively limited in what you can create if you cannot recoup your costs."

Oh, I agree, but it's not as bad as it sounds; the costs for creation sink as well. Currently there w

Re:Go sweden go!

[Znork]

"Why pay for R&D when you can simply wait around to piggyback off of someone else's hard work?"

Which company would you invest in? The one spending money doing R&D, or the one sitting on their arse always being one step after the competition? If Microsoft said 'meh, we're gonna quit developing and just sell copies of FreeBSD', would you invest in them? If Redhat said 'screw this, we'll just copy Mandriva', would you think they had a bright future?

R&D always gives an advantage in itself.

"This is why we have intellectual property laws."

No, that's the propaganda reason we have intellectual property laws. The actual reason we have intellectual property laws is that several hundred years ago some royalty realized they could further tax the population and curry favours from merchants by granting the merchants monopolies.

However, while a certain amount of R&D always has been and always will be done for its own value and the first-player advantage, we may still want to increase the rewards for R&D to further increase the rate. That's a straightforward subsidy problem, nothing new and nothing strange for any government. But government support for specific sectors and specific acts by granting monopolies is one of the absolutely worst ways to generate such rewards and it creates so much economic collateral damage you'd have to go to state-run former Soviet factories to see something similar.

The Shell Game Continues

[geomon]

So the European equivalent of the MPAA/RIAA will have succeeded in shutting down file sharing of copyrighted material in Sweden only to see it pop up elsewhere in the world. This game will continue because, like all forms of covert smuggling operations, the excise tax charged by these organizations are viewed by the consumer as onerous and overpriced. If the music and film industry were to reduce their taxes, just as England did in the mid-18th Century, they will find that compliance increases and smuggling declines to nominal levels.

You can say the same thing about prohibition. Once you create a black market for a product through legislation or exorbitant pricing, it is impossible to put smuggling down permanently.

Re:The Shell Game Continues

[trynis]

So the European equivalent of the MPAA/RIAA will have succeeded in shutting down file sharing of copyrighted material in Sweden only to see it pop up elsewhere in the world.

Actually, they have not succeeded in anything except that they are now allowed to store and process personal information about file sharers. Recently the data board classified IP-adresses as personal information, which meant they needed permission to store and process it without the users consent. They now have this permission. However, since it is now clear that they are subject to this law (called PUL, which means something like Law of Personal Information), they are also required to tell the registered person about the registration. In order to do this they need to know who has a particular IP, and only the ISP can help with this, but they refuse to cooperate. It is all very confusing and amusing to follow.

Re:The Shell Game Continues

[SheeEttin]

Like I say, the only way to defeat piracy is to remedy what originally caused it--not try and prevent it. In this case, it's prices and things like the **AA. Simply lower prices and make things more available, and there'll be no need for piracy.

Bleeding heart

[Anonymous Custard]

Call me a bleeding heart, but aren't there more important problems than file sharing in the world, such as starvation, aids, poverty, political repression, terrorism? It amazes me how many resources are wasted on this file sharing crap, and I'd never vote for a legislator who spent more time on file sharing than real problems.

Re:Bleeding heart

[Badflash]

Well, you sure of that?

I think they passed some laws for that in USA. So I guess nobody cares about aids, health, environment, social goals in congress/government/whatever.

Re:Bleeding heart

[mangus_angus]

but aren't there more important problems than file sharing in the world, such as starvation, aids, poverty, political repression, terrorism?

Not if your organization name ends in "AA" or one of their off shoots.

Re:Bleeding heart

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sentiments are noble, but misplaced. You blame the legislators for not throwing out this stuff immediately; they aren't the problem. They'd probably be thrilled if they could simply do that. The problem is that there are very rich organizations trying to pull strings. And you cannot simply sweep aside the very rich, because they wield a great deal of economic power.

The metaconflict is arguably about the power of pure wealth versus the power of the democratic government.

Re:Bleeding heart

[Rycross]

There are a lot of human beings in the world, and we can work on more thing than once. What makes you think that noone is working on stavation, aids, poverty, political reporession, or terrorism? Plenty of charity work being done there. In fact, there is such a thing as spending too much effort on something. Ever hear the phrase "too many cooks spoil the pot?"

Granted, I agree that it seems a bit frivilous.

Re:Bleeding heart

[Yartrebo]

Tell that to the RIAA/MPAA/media companies. File sharers aren't the ones asking for all the crazy new laws.

Re:Bleeding heart

[stanmann]

Well, what is your plan for wiping out poverty and starvation? Does it involve wiping out political repression and terrorism first? If not it is a waste of energy. If it does, be aware that repression and terrorism must be wiped out by use of focussed violence and that will make your plan unpopular both among terrorists, dictators and anti-war activists.

Re:Bleeding heart

[Hrvat]

Wow buddy, you really have it in for USA. I guess people trying to emigrate to US are just masochists because their countries are so much better.

Yes, there are things that suck in the US, no country is perfect.

Re:Bleeding heart

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Yes well but...consider the "IP" problem in a larger light. You are the leader of a poor country whose inhabitants are mostly infected with a disease requiring a very expensive drug that can be cheaply produced in your country, but "IP" laws prevent you from saving their lives. Do you let your people die for a legal fiction?

Re:Bleeding heart

[Anonymous Custard]

What makes you think that noone is working on stavation, aids, poverty, political reporession, or terrorism?

Africa.

Well, it's not like there's no one working on it, but clearly way too few.

Seems about right

[slavemowgli]

That seems like exactly the right thing to do to me, actually. Not that I think that copyright infringement is something that necessarily should be allowed, mind you, but if somebody's done something wrong, then it's the job of the police to investigate - not private companies'. And the fact that Antipiratbyrån seems to have planted evidence in the past (search for it, I'm too lazy to look up the story; Slashdot covered it) just shows again why this is important.

What's more, it's not immediately clear to me why it would even be legal for an ISP to give out data about customers to a private company that asks for it, without (I presume) the customer's knowledge or consent. Not that I know a thing about Swedish law, of course, but that sounds like exactly the kind of thing that could result in class action lawsuits and the like, so if I was an ISP, I'd definitely err on the safe side here and only hand over customer data to the police, not private companies, and only when ordered to do so by a court of law.

Re:Seems about right

[Kenja]

So you think there should be no such thing as a civil law suit? Or do you think that its the job of the police to deal with things such as slander and malpractice? Copyright violcation is a civil matter. Look at it this way. If someone setup a web page that listed personal information about you, called you names and had doctored photos of you in secual congress with farm animals. Should you not be able to get the ISP to shut them down and tell you who they are so you can sue?

Re:Seems about right

[Qzukk]

So you think there should be no such thing as a civil law suit?

Fine, file a lawsuit, have the court issue a subpoena. Even civil law has processes to follow. Just because it's Big Business going around rounding up people doesn't make them any less of a vigilantee than the "good ol' boys" going out with their whiskey and guns to "get that feller".

Re:Seems about right

[Persol]

That's what courts are for. If ISPs shut down website because of legal action we'd be in trouble. The debacle with pennyarcade over the last few months is a good example. Political oriented blogs are another.

Just because I tell your ISP that netweasel is my copyrighted nickname, doesn't mean they should shutdown your site.

(Granted, ISPs need to use common sense... and currently seem to. REQUIRING them to shutdown a site prior to a court ruling is IMHO a very bad thing.)

Re:Seems about right

[technos]

Should you not be able to get the ISP to shut them down and tell you who they are so you can sue?

No. You should have the ability to get a court order to shut them down based on facts.

No private citizen, company, or trade-association deserves police powers, or the power to subpoena at will, or the power of injunction. Ever.

Re:Seems about right

[Kenja]

"Just because I tell your ISP that netweasel is my copyrighted nickname, doesn't mean they should shutdown your site."

Interestingly enough the site was called Web Weasel the first time around but it turns out that name is trade marked by a universisty in the mid west.

Re:Seems about right

[Kenja]

"Fine, file a lawsuit, have the court issue a subpoena. Even civil law has processes to follow. Just because it's Big Business going around rounding up people doesn't make them any less of a vigilantee than the "good ol' boys" going out with their whiskey and guns to "get that feller"."

You cant file a suit against a "jon doe" in many cases. You need at least a name. Often you need to serve the person with papers so you need to know who and where they are.

I agree that there is a legal process to follow. But at the same time I cant help but be pissed at the people who take the attitude that if its on the internet they are untouchable.

Re:Seems about right

[QuickFox]

photos of you in secual congress with farm animals.

What makes you think you have the right to run around with a camera on my farm?

--
  Waging war against fundamentalism is as likely to make the fundamentalists give up as 9/11 was likely to make the United States give up.

Re:Seems about right

[Kenja]

"What makes you think you have the right to run around with a camera on my farm?"

Information about you buggering chickens wants to be free!

Re:Seems about right

[cpt kangarooski]

I disagree. I think that copyright infringement should be decriminalized and that law enforcement should not enforce copyrights sua sponte.

Instead, if it's entirely a civil matter, then businesses will have to decide for themselves whether they want to enforce their rights, and will have to bear their own costs when doing so. My taxes won't subsidize them then. This also frees up law enforcement resources for serious matters.

Re:Seems about right

[Persol]

You cant file a suit against a "jon doe" in many cases.

But again, that's a process to be handled by the courts. I rob your bank, but I'm stupid enough to right my demand on a note with my SSN# on it. You can't just call up and ask who the SSN# belongs too. (Sadly, this has happened)

Likewise, being able to call an ISP and asking who uses IP addy xxx.xxx... would be a Bad Thing(tm). An individual doesn't have the ability to obtain and abuse this information... neither should a corporation.

Re:Seems about right

[Kenja]

The problem I think is that there isn't a process that covers this. In many cases there are no papers you can file against a web site owner wihtout knowing who they are.

Perhaps we need some new civil laws dealing with the conditions underwhich an ISP must provide customer information.

Re:Seems about right

[cpt kangarooski]

You cant file a suit against a "jon doe" in many cases. You need at least a name.

What makes you think so? John Doe suits are fairly common. There is such a thing as pre-service discovery so as to facilitate serving process on the right person when you don't know their identity at the commencement of the suit.

Honestly, it makes sense. If you can discover who injured you, why should we have an artificial barrier that impairs your ability to seek redress for your injury just because the culprit hid himself a bit?

Re:Seems about right

[Darkmoth]

If you can discover who injured you, why should we have an artificial barrier that impairs your ability to seek redress for your injury just because the culprit hid himself a bit?

There is a very good reason for this.

While you may think that the Injury->Access->Redress sequence is completely obvious, you have to deal with cases where:

1) The Injury is fake, or misrepresented, or exaggerated

2) The Redress is inappropriate, unwarranted, or malicious

I maintain John Doe stole 90 grand from me, so I'd like his credit card # so I can get it back (with a little for pain and suffering). Ouch, eh?

We don't generally trust private citizens to guarantee that the two issues are addressed objectively. That is the province of law, and legal institutions. Therefore, it is premature to grant private citizens access, without the intervention of a legal entity.

Re:Seems about right

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, I'm talking about this in the context of a trial or other legal proceedings. I had figured this was clear, given that we're talking about serving process, discovery, etc. Would you care to respond again, given that?

Re:Seems about right

[Darkmoth]

Well, I'm talking about this in the context of a trial or other legal proceedings. I had figured this was clear, given that we're talking about serving process, discovery, etc.

In the context of a trial, I'd agree with you. But in that case, your right to access not impeded by an "artifical barrier". Someone gets subpeonaed, and the legal entity representing you gets the information they need to exercise law.

Back to this specific example, could you guarantee that every request for an IP address was made by an objective party?

Re:Seems about right

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Well it is necessary to ballance the potential damage of not providing the name to the potential damage of invading individual privacy. Anonomous speech (at least seems to be) protected, as providing the name would inhibit free expression (due to the likelyhood of non-court based reprisal). Hard to draw a parallel, though, since "free expression" is a well recognized common public good, and sharing information is currently not as well recongized as the common public good I would suggest it is.

Re:Seems about right

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Get a court order to shut who down? That is the question in a nutshell. If you have enough evidence to go to court, but can't find out *who* they are until you get them to court, should you be able to get a court order without taking them to court? Is there a catch-22 here?

Re:Seems about right

[ScoLgo]

No! No, it doesn't. Please think of the children!

Re:Seems about right

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, if we're going all the way back to 'Organization A asks for information about John Doe B from ISP C' then I don't think there's a problem with them asking.

It's probably good to have laws limiting how fully, if at all, the ISP can answer. But if you don't have those laws, then it's at the ISP's discretion; might work out well, might not.

Re:Seems about right

[slackmaster2000]

There's no catch-22. You need a court order to obtain private information, for which you'll need evidence of illegal activity. You don't need to know WHO is committing the crime, because that's what you're trying to find out.

If you're my neighbor and I suspect your kids of stealing something from me, I don't have any right to walk into your house and start rummaging around in their rooms. If a record company suspects that a customer of an ISP is sharing copyright material, they shouldn't have any right to just walk into that ISP and demand to see customer records. They should have to go through the legal system on a case per case basis like everyone else.

Re:Seems about right

[Fulcrum of Evil]

If someone setup a web page that listed personal information about you, called you names and had doctored photos of you in secual congress with farm animals.

Funny thing about that - in WA, a guy who went onto someone else's farm to film his buddy doing a horse was charged recently. The charge was trespassing, as bestiality is legal here.

Re:Seems about right

[sconeu]

He's only "loving" chickens so that Officer Barbrady will learn how to read.

Pirate Bay Legal Threats ...

[ta ma de]

Chart ... Number of Threats Recieved -> 13; Number of Torrents deleted -> 1,000,000 +

I hope, that in true pirate fashion, they sail their ship to safer waters.

Re:Pirate Bay Legal Threats ...

[RelaxedTension]

I think you need to look a little closer at the chart, 0 (zero) have been deleted.

Re:Pirate Bay Legal Threats ...

[mattis_f]

Pirate Bay is relying on a Swedish ruling back in '97, or so, when a guy was considered innocent of any wrong doing when he was linking to mp3's that were hosted on someone else's machine. He was pointing at the crime, but not committing it. This is the precedence that Pirate Bay leans on all the time.

Eventually I guess it will be taken back to court again, and then we'll see what happens. But until then, they can sail on.

Perhaps it's time for a compromise.

[91degrees]

How about these concepts as a starting point; These are simply ideas that in my opinion are not too controversial.

We want to ensure its's possible to make a profit from creative works.
People will copy data.
Sharing between friends is not going to bring down the music/movie/software industry.
Online file sharing should probably be discouraged, or at least not strongly encouraged.
Awarding disproportionately huge damages against file sharers is not a just solution.
A distinction should be made between small scale copying for free, and large scale copying for financial gain.

When we have the government siding strongly with the media cartels, and disproportionate penalties for file sharers, as well as the invasion of privacy by a private organisation means that people loserespect for the law. This is generally speaking a bad thing. m'kay.

Most people agree that copyright is largely a good thing. Most people also have no qualms about using pirated software. I'm sure we can find a compromise.

Re:Perhaps it's time for a compromise.

[Have Blue]

A distinction should be made between small scale copying for free, and large scale copying for financial gain.

That was how the original "fair use" precedent was set, and described in the AHRA. Small scale copying between friends was covered under fair use, large scale copying for selling unlicensed copies was illegal. The problem is that the Internet introduces a third type- large scale copying not for profit. Both sides of the debate are now trying to treat this new category in terms of the existing two- sharers by arguing that it's not fundamentally different from making a copy for a single friend, and publishers by arguing that its effect is not fundamentally different from selling bootleg movies on a streetcorner. But both of these positions are wrong. It's something entirely new.

Re:Perhaps it's time for a compromise.

[mc6809e]

A distinction should be made between small scale copying for free, and large scale copying for financial gain.

Then it's the ISPs the should be paying, shouldn't it?

How much money have they from people that bought an Internet connection so they could get free music?

ISPs have made plenty of money from other people's music and haven't paid them a cent.

Re:Perhaps it's time for a compromise.

[stinerman]

I disagree with these points:

We want to ensure its's possible to make a profit from creative works.
Online file sharing should probably be discouraged, or at least not strongly encouraged.

I could care less about profits from creative works. Copyright law doesn't exist to make people money. It is to increase the amount of information available to the citizenry. The idea is that if you give someone a monopoly on disseminating their works, they will be more likely to disseminate said works. What needs to occur is to find out what length of copyright will allow for the dessemination of the most works into the public domain, wether that be 10 days or 10 years.

Online file sharing should be strongly encouraged. If P2P file-sharing falls out of favor, we'll go back to the days when only someone who can afford to buy web space in order to disseminate their program. File sharing takes the power of information out of the hands of large conglomerates and gives it back to the people, where it rightly belongs.

Re:Perhaps it's time for a compromise.

[Guysmiley777]

How about this for a compromise:

Instead of clinging to an outdated and broken distribution system by filing lawsuits against everything that moves, we burn the entire recording industry to the ground and start over with artists actually getting paid for their work.

Then we have lunch. I think that's fair.

Re:Perhaps it's time for a compromise.

[Jherek Carnelian]

Most people agree that copyright is largely a good thing.

Or is it really that most people believe that because they are unaware of any alternative?

Today, financing a creative work is an investment with high risk - you have little guarantee that the end product will sell enough to recoup the investment, much less make a profit.

Long before the invention of the printing press, most creative works were financed by patrons - they were works for hire. The artist got paid for the effort of creation and the patron owned the end result. No need for copyright laws at all.

In today's world, the Internet brings people together. It should be possible to bring together thousands, even millions of interested 'patrons' to hire an artist - or an entire production company - to create works of entertainment. The benefit to the artist is that creation is no longer a financial risk, the money is in hand (or in an escrow account) and the benefit to the 'patrons' is that the creative work is released to the public domain so they can share it with anyone and everyone without breaking the law - they literally own it.

This kind of business model is a perfect example of a free market because the consumer is directly paying for the produced goods, no middle-men (like advertisers or distribution companies) to distort the market and no need for government regulation (ala copyright law). An artist that is popular will be able to charge progessively higher prices for each new work, thus quality work (or at least popular work) will be justly rewarded, and the goal, as stated in the US constitutionm to further the progress of science and the useful arts will be realized.

Re:Perhaps it's time for a compromise.

[westlake]

I could care less about profits from creative works.

Historically, there are only three ways an artist can survive and remain productive:

1 He is independently wealthy. In the past, a landed aristocrat like Livy or Thomas Jefferson sustained by slave labor.

2 He is subsidized by the state, the church, or a private patron. Not unlike being paid by Sun but working more or less full time on OpenOffice. But patrons can be whimsical and demanding.

3 He sells his work in a protected market. Shakespeare doesn't go to law, he goes to his contacts and business partners in the Court of King James.

The capitalist model lowers the barriers to entry while granting the artist a measure of independence and security. It seems to have worked pretty well.

File sharing takes the power of information out of the hands of large conglomerates and gives it back to the people, where it rightly belongs.

Distribution is not production. You saved $5 on a video rental. But Harry Potter continues to define and shape a younger generation as Star Wars did the last.

Re:Perhaps it's time for a compromise.

[stinerman]

There isn't any sort of inherent natural law that says artists have to make money from releasing their works. I have friends in a local indie band. They don't make a dime off of their CD sales (in fact, I believe they're in the red). They make a bit of extra income doing shows. They aren't out to make money selling their works. They do it because they love their art.

Your "2)" sounds like what I believe a better system for rewarding artists for releasing their works should be. There needn't be a single patron, but several patrons to pay artists to be able to create full-time. Notice the mass of people on sourceforge who donate to Freenet, Azureus, etc.

The capitalist model lowers the barriers to entry while granting the artist a measure of independence and security. It seems to have worked pretty well.

As far as our current system, which involves a government-sponsored monopoly, I highly doubt most of our libertarian friends would agree that capitalism is synonamyous with monopolies (especially government-sponsored ones). The system was more effective when works were continually entering the public domain. Now it seems the government knows that the only capital we have left is so-called intellectual property since we don't manufacture much except for heavy machinery.

Getting a bit off-topic, basing our economy on intellectual capital is very dangerous as it only takes one country (China) to ignore our IP protection laws in order to destroy us economically.

Re:Perhaps it's time for a compromise.

[91degrees]

Or is it really that most people believe that because they are unaware of any alternative?

Doesn't matter. If you want to convince people your way is better, then you are free to do that. Once you have convinced enough people, lobby for the law to be changed again.

I propose that the law should match public perception of what it should be. When public perception changes, the law should change to acommodate. Lawmakers have to have a certain flexibility here since the people often have incompatible requirements (e.g. high public spending and low taxes) but there shuld be a principle that people get more or less the laws they want.

The plastic age will melt

[endemoniada]

Listening to music in Sweden got a whole lot harder a while ago. A law was passed that essentially banned anyone from even making backups of CDs for personal use. If we buy a CD, break it, we aren't allowed to use our backup to make a new CD. In fact, we aren't even allowed to MAKE a backup. How's this for the digital age?

Re:The plastic age will melt

[thunderbee]

The music industry would like you to pay every time you listen to your CD.
Having you buy another one if you break it is still waaaay off this objective, but rest assured that they will do everything in their power to get there.
Same with the movie industry of course.

So, enjoy your free re-listening while it lasts.

Re:The plastic age will melt

[b4stard]

FYI, the yank's and most of the EU got that as well. DMCA and EUCD.
I completely agree with you on the bizarreness of it though.

Re:The plastic age will melt

[despisethesun]

I don't know about the EUCD, but the DMCA doesn't prevent you from making fair-use copies. It's perfectly legal to back up your music however you like as long as you don't keep those backups if you ever sell your original copy. It's illegal to break any encryption or copy protection to make those copies, though.

Re:The plastic age will melt

[6*7]

The EUCD doesn't forbid to make a backup. It only makes it illegal to break copy protection mechanisms.

Nothing is stopping you from doing an analog backup (just like in the pre-CD era). I guess if you have the right equipment you can make a nearly losless conversion.

Re:The plastic age will melt

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Actually what good are "fair use rights" if you have to violate federal law to get access to use them?

Re:The plastic age will melt

[despisethesun]

I agree completely. I think it's an incredibly fucked up situation. But my point was that the DMCA didn't invalidate those rights, even if it did create a sort of legal paradox.

Re:The plastic age will melt

[lordofthechia]

The music industry would like you to pay every time you listen to your CD.

They would also like for pay every time you end up with defective cds .

Re:The plastic age will melt

[Pofy]

>It only makes it illegal to break copy protection mechanisms.

And note, that as oposed to the DMCA for example, you CAN break acceess protection mechanisms (and many of he protection mechanisms are that, access and not copy, Sure, some countries implemented the directive adding access as well, some, like Sweden, did not.

Data Protection Law Exception

[Persol]

What's more, it's not immediately clear to me why it would even be legal for an ISP to give out data about customers to a private company that asks for it, without (I presume) the customer's knowledge or consent.

RTFS. The story mentions that an exception was granted for data protection laws.

Compromise

[stmr]

Where do we draw the line? Are those 5gigs quotas gonna be enough in 2010? :(

Slightly OT: pirating in general

[Skadet]

I work for a webhosting firm and almost monthly we get calls from old dudes with fishing websites asking why they used 500 Gigs of transfer and got an insane bill last month. Invariably it's because their ftp password was "cat" or some nonsense and somebody dumped a copy of dreamweaver, or a ton of MP3s, etc. on their account and linked it to a pirate site. But the first time I saw this happen, it made me think: piracy in general can have more economic impact that you realize at first.

For example, when the above happens, we usually do a one-time refund of the bandwidth charge, which is often considerable, and I'm sure we're not the exception. That means we eat the bandwidth bill for that person. Now, consider that all webhosts are likely to do the same and I wonder what the economic impact is across the board?

Interesting how there are facets you don't even realize exist.

Re:Slightly OT: pirating in general

[Persol]

You need to point out however that the real problem here is a theft and bandwidth (which unlike copying, is a limited resource).

I'd have to point out the similarities to prohibition. Yes, selling alchohol was illegal. However, stealing and killing over it was wrong.

Alchohol (or filesharing) isn't the problem... it's prohibition that convinces people to do things they wouldn't usually do.

Re:Slightly OT: pirating in general

[slo_learner]

Why do your company allow the fishermen to use ftp instead of something secure like ssh? Why aren't password complexity rules enforced.

Certainly there is a cost to be absorbed in doing business safely and securely over the internet. Seems like your company is taking it in the wrong end.

Re:Slightly OT: pirating in general

[Zone-MR]

Damn... at first I read fishing as phishing, so the rest of the post didn't make much sense ;)

I need to get out more.

Re:Slightly OT: pirating in general

[Sleepy]

>But the first time I saw this happen, it made me think: piracy in general can have more economic impact that you realize at first.

Let me get this straight:
If your customers are being routinely hacked
You know why this happens ...

The link to piracy here is circumstancial. Your bandwidth could be misused in some other way just as easily... a Paris Hilton video, a very popular Linux ISO, or "anything" really.

Of course the customer is always 'right' and you let them use '1234' as a password, and the cycle repeats.
Banks do NOT let their customers use '1234' or '9999' as a PIN!

The person holding you to this policy IS THE PROBLEM. They do not care about the loss of revenue or the distress to the customer, so long as their job is made easier.

There are little rules you can enforce on passwords: 8 characters at least, include at least 1 number, etc. Make it easy to resend the password automatically if they forget it, so you're not getting support calls on that either.

You do NOT need to make them use difficult random passwords to eliminate most of the problem.

'cat'.. LOL...

Re:Slightly OT: pirating in general

[heson]

If all webhosts have equally bad security, I understand why its so damn expensive. Its the same with banks, they know credit cards are insecure, but its easier to pay the customers bills than to fix the problems. The customers always pay for it anyway in the end.

Re:Slightly OT: pirating in general

[d34thm0nk3y]

I work for a webhosting firm and almost monthly we get calls from old dudes with fishing websites asking why they used 500 Gigs of transfer and got an insane bill last month. Invariably it's because their ftp password was "cat" or some nonsense and somebody dumped a copy of dreamweaver, or a ton of MP3s, etc. on their account and linked it to a pirate site. But the first time I saw this happen, it made me think: piracy in general can have more economic impact that you realize at first.

Of course, keep in mind that unauthorized account access (theft of service) is the actual cause of this issue. This is already illegal as well.

Re:Slightly OT: pirating in general

[shani]

Banks do NOT let their customers use '1234' or '9999' as a PIN!

My bank lets me use '1234' as a PIN, what are you talking about?

(It's a joke. I don't even know what a PIN is.)

Re:Slightly OT: pirating in general

[Famatra]

"But the first time I saw this happen, it made me think: piracy in general can have more economic impact that you realize at first."

This connection seems incidental. Seems to me the problem isnt piracy per say but the fact that it is illegal to share certain kinds of information and some people break the law to share.

Making file sharing legal for personal use, or doing away with copyright altogether, would resolve your problem of people breaking into your server to share currently copyrighted material. The problem is solved since I'd guess most would simply share it off their own computer instead of trying to conceal their actions by breaking into your servers.

Re:Slightly OT: pirating in general

[xlr8ed]

use '1234' Hey, that's the combonation to my luggage

Re:Slightly OT: pirating in general

[StikyPad]

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing.. I thought, "Ok, a phishing scam probably doesn't generate 500GB/mo normally, but, uh.. you're helping them host phishing sites and you want sympathy for rooted FTPs? And old guys are running these sites now?"

Re:Slightly OT: pirating in general

[StikyPad]

'very popular Linux ISO'.. LOL...

I can tell you who will win this brawl...

[hsmith]

Whoever has the most money to buy legislation protecting themselves. My bet is the music/film industry will purchase the right to sue.

Re:I can tell you who will win this brawl...

[b4stard]

I'm sorry, the brawl is taking place in Sweden, not the states, so the outcome is not obvious yet.

Re:I can tell you who will win this brawl...

[maillemaker]

"Whoever has the most money to buy legislation protecting themselves. My bet is the music/film industry will purchase the right to sue."

I'm betting you are right. I bet they just pass a law that compells the ISP to provide the IP address.

Personally, I think this is the way piracy will ultimately be dealt with, along with a host of other problems that crop up because of the sense of anonymity the Internet provides.

Ultimately, your IP address is not going to be private. You can go through whatever anonymizer services you like, ultimately the data, like a fuse, runs right back to you. Your ISP almost certainly can follow it. I think ultimately they will be compelled to by law.

Imagine how many fewer flamewars there will be when no one is anonymous anymore!

maillemaker

Re:I can tell you who will win this brawl...

[TheSpoom]

If they do this, the Internet will route around it.

This, I can guarantee. If the Internet is changed such that it is no longer possible to be anonymous, people will either make an anonymous, separate internet, or an anonymous peer to peer service that goes through several anonymous peers before reaching its location, a la Freenet.

Re:I can tell you who will win this brawl...

[Ernesto Alvarez]

As said in the other replies, the Internet tends to route around damage. Even if ISPs are forced to reveal all information know to them. The next step is even written as of today in the Darknet paper, by no one other than Microsoft! (DOC link, sorry but MS has a tendency to do that things)

What will happen is that you will have infringers sharing copyrighted content on invitation only, encrypted networks.

Then the ISPs will not be able to help RIAA and company because they will not be able to see into the encrypted channels (and that's the answer they will give since it's in their best interest that file sharing continues).

Sure, they will suspect such activity, but nothing will be proven unless someone screws up really bad (like inviting an informer to the closed net).

That paper is really interesting to read.

PB

[loconet]

PB, based in Sweden, has some fun to read legal threats from Microsoft, Dreamworks, EA, White Stripes, etc. along with PB's responses.

Re:PB

[slavemowgli]

The difference here is that ThePirateBay does not actually host any material copyrighted to third parties, and neither do they transfer such material themselves. They merely provide a service that allows others to coordinate their efforts to commit copyright infringement.

It's understandable that the industry doesn't like this, but it's also understandable that this isn't (yet?) illegal under Swedish law. Copyright infringement is not a criminal offense, so aiding and abetting (which is all they're doing) isn't illegal.

As such, it's understandable that they're ignoring the complaints they get - especially those that claim that what they're doing is illegal under the DMCA etc. (do those who send those letters honestly believe that US law applies in Sweden?).

Re:PB

[xmda]

Isn't that about the same Napster did? Napster did not store any "illegal" information, they just pointed out to person X that person Y had something to share. And see what happened to Napster...

Re:PB

[Lifewish]

Different country, different laws. Or at least different wording thereof.

IP Laws Are Obsolete and Unfair

[MOBE2001]

Then the music industry joined in with some punches of its own, saying it too will hunt those who share songs online.

It's time that the powers that be recognized that the current IP laws are not only stupid but have become obsolete in the internet age. Certainly, artists and inventors must be compensated for their work and creativity but the IP laws are not the way to do it. The IP laws are being unfairly used by a few to oppress the many, all in the name of greed. The nations of the world should form a fact-finding commission to come up with a different way of compensating IP creators. I think all information should be released freely on the internet (unless the inventor has a way to keep it a secret). A fully funded international body should then determine what sum of money should be allotted to whom based on utility to the public, download data or some other poll mechanism. All nations that use the internet should participate. Inventors and artists would simply publish their stuff on the net, file a claim application with the IP Authority and wait for their checks in the mail. If necessary, as we get more confident in the use of the system, allotments should be made retroactive. Otherwise, I see nations going to war over IP or worse. One man's opinion.

Re:IP Laws Are Obsolete and Unfair

[ThJ]

If I had mod points, I'd mod you up.

Re:IP Laws Are Obsolete and Unfair

[unknownideal]

YES! More bureaucracy! Let's give more people with zero stake in something complete control over it! How does such a group make any decisions? Out of the good of their hearts? By what they consider best for you? Funny how people always ascribe all this "greed" to corporations and rarely to public officials. Let's get something straight right now: EVERYONE IS IN IT--THIS THING WE CALL LIFE--FOR THEIR OWN GOOD. In itself there is nothing wrong with this. But you have to watch the ones who say they aren't, that they're here for the sake of everyone else, and that you should be too. They're running a con game and they want your blood. Unless it involves physical violence, government is never the solution.

Re:IP Laws Are Obsolete and Unfair

[linuxrocks123]

"But you have to watch the ones who say they aren't, that they're here for the sake of everyone else, and that you should be too. They're running a con game and they want your blood. Unless it involves physical violence, government is never the solution."

What the hell are you talking about? You think that everyone would murder his spouse, children and closest friends for a fee if he could get away with it? I'll admit that people can be frustratingly selfish sometimes, but it's not true that selfishness is the only motivator of mankind. Do you think that Habitat for Humanity is "running a con game"?

Your statement reflects extreme immaturity, and I hope you're just a cynical 14 year old and still have time to mature. A philosophy like that suggests that you can do nothing but harm to the sum of human happiness.

Re:IP Laws Are Obsolete and Unfair

[unknownideal]

A man's spouse, children and closest friends are assets to him, so he will act in their favor, which is in his favor.

Your belief that selfishness necessitates violence is a confession of the fact that you believe people desire to act in such a way. What does that say about you?

Re:IP Laws Are Obsolete and Unfair

[linuxrocks123]

"A man's spouse, children and closest friends are assets to him."
          Well, that may be true, but how do you explain the man who stays by his wife even when she has a dreadful illness, and spends countless hours caring for her? I know someone who did just that. That answer is a cop-out, and you probably knew it when you said it. All I have to do is find one example of nonselfish behavior to disprove your general statement that EVERYONE IS IN IT--THIS THING WE CALL LIFE--FOR THEIR OWN GOOD.

Re:IP Laws Are Obsolete and Unfair

[unknownideal]

I don't see how that's a selfless behavior. I do see that you evaluate a person's worth by their physical health. Again, very telling. (N.B. A man caring for someone in a permanently vegetative state wouldn't be selfless either. His actions in this case are a result of social pressures/religious delusions, etc.)

In fact, the only genuine example of altruistic behavior would be when one sacrifices something significant for a complete stranger for no reason other than the receiver's well-being. This, of course, never occurs as we find the impetus is always social pressures/religious delusions, etc.

Re:IP Laws Are Obsolete and Unfair

[linuxrocks123]

I ignored this stuff first time, but I see you are going to keep up these bizarre, ad hominem attacks, so I'll correct you in both cases now.

"Your belief that selfishness necessitates violence is a confession of the fact that you believe people desire to act in such a way. What does that say about you?"

That selfishness necessitates violence does not follow from what I said. I don't know how you got that I said that; I've looked at my comment and I never said selfishness necessitates violence. In fact, selfishness isn't even a prerequisite for violence. Now, I agree that violence often does result from selfishness, but I never made even that statement in my comment.

"I _do_ see that you evaluate a person's worth by their physical health."

No, you think you see it, or at least you'd like to pretend to see it because it fits with your twisted view of humanity. I was assuming your description of a loved one as "an asset" temporarily in order to derive a contradiction. Let me spell it out for you: Assume that everyone is totally selfish and care for other human beings only because they are "assets" to him. If a spouse becomes seriously ill and is dying, requiring constant care, he becomes a liability. Since the relationship is no longer beneficial to the healthy spouse, selfish reasoning suggests the healthy spouse should leave the sick spouse. However, I have a case where not only does the healthy spouse not leave the sick spouse, but spends countless hours caring for her. Contradiction, and you lose.

"In fact, the only genuine example of altruistic behavior would be when one sacrifices something significant for a complete stranger _for no reason other than the receiver's well-being_."

Why would it have to be a complete stranger? You haven't proven that. Further, to act altruistically one doesn't have to complete disregard his own well-being. He just has to take the other person's well-being into account and make a decision that, while it may benefit him, won't benefit him as much as an alternative action would. Basically, to act altruistically the person must incur an opportunity cost that outweighs his action. An act that saves someone's life might net $1,000,000 for the actor and still be altruistic if by helping the other person he forgoes the opportunity to make $2,000,000 instead.

"This, of course, never occurs as we find the impetus is always social pressures/religious delusions, etc."

Social conventions and religous beliefs encouraging unselfish behavior are created by society. Society is composed of people. Therefore, some people have unselfish motives. QED.

Re:IP Laws Are Obsolete and Unfair

[unknownideal]

They're not ad-hominem attacks unless I predicate my arguments on them. These are just observations.

Now let's talk about how you are a detestable monster.


From my assertion that all people act selfishly, you derive the following: "You think that everyone would murder his spouse, children and closest friends for a fee if he could get away with it?" Your conclusion is that selfishness necessitates murderous behavior, again, because you are a monster who has just confessed to a desire to act in such a way.


Your contention that people are to be graded and judged solely by physical health, that the physically unfit are "liabilities," and that "selfish reasoning suggests the healthy spouse should leave the sick spouse" does not follow anything I said. It is your own belief, Dr. Strangelove. And I don't see it could be "temporary."
You evidently believe that if people are to be valued at all, it is for physical health, therefore we can only love altruistically, which is to say, for no reason whatsoever. Why is it that you cannot imagine any way in which to value a person other than by physical health?


Altruism can best be exemplified by a sacrifice to a complete stranger because, if the receiving party is an asset to the giving party, the act is not a sacrifice but a trade. A man who spends his last cent on his wife's medical treatment has demonstrated that his wife is worth more to him than the money--it was a trade. A true sacrifice would involve a man who spends his last cent on someone he never knew.
An act can be partially altruistic, but for the sake of clarity, I'm discussing the most pure forms of altruism. I should have said "the purest example of altruistic behavior . . ." This is not to say altruism exists, only that the behavior is commited under its guise.


And lastly, you make no differentiation between coerced and volitional acts, as if a man acting under threat is not doing whatever he must to save himself. You would make an excellent dictator.

Re:IP Laws Are Obsolete and Unfair

[linuxrocks123]

Your contention that people are to be graded and judged solely by physical health, that the physically unfit are "liabilities," and that "selfish reasoning suggests the healthy spouse should leave the sick spouse" does not follow anything I said. It is your own belief, Dr. Strangelove.

Have you never done a logic proof, or are you just being ignorant for the sake of argument? People are not entirely selfish _because if they were they would judge people like that_. Of course I don't judge the moral worth of someone based solely on their physical health, _because I am not a purely selfish person_. I don't love my family because they are "assets". I don't think that a man should leave his wife if she gets seriously ill (or vice versa). _If I were purely selfish, I would_. That there exist people, including me, who wouldn't do these things (would you?) disproves your statement that all people are purely selfish.

Now as far as "selfishness necessitates violence" goes, I was stating that _pure selfishness would imply violent behavior_ in that instance. Selfish behavior isn't always violent, and it isn't always evil. It would be evil to kill your family for money. I hope you can see this.

I can't make it any clearer than this. If you still don't get it, you either lack any understanding of rational thought or are being intellectually dishonest with yourself.

Re:IP Laws Are Obsolete and Unfair

[unknownideal]

You've done nothing but restate your last post. I think someone is being intellectually dishonest.

What you fail to grasp about your "logic proof" is its origin: your own thoughts, desires and convictions. Regardless of whether or not you're selfish (which you are), whatever you honesly believe "a selfish person" would desire can only be your own desire. There's no way around it. BUT, if you really do not wish to murder your family or leave your sick spouse, then your projection of this "selfish person" is dishonest (which it is).


We value other people to the degree to which we identify with them--that's the extent to which they are like us. This is the most utterly selfish behavior imaginable. (You may be tempted to say that this is untrue because it doesn't seem that people always gravitate to those who are alike, but having only a few essential characteristics in common is plenty. On the other hand, religion and societal pressures compel people to maintain false relationships.) You did not know why you love. Now you do.


As far as the behaviors you maintain are selfish such as theft, murder, etc, the fact is that any irrational behavior is never ultimately selfish. That's impossible as that which is irrational does not correspond to reality, and when you challange the facts of reality, they win every time. The reasons why criminal behavior is always irrational and not just simply immoral are plentiful but beyond the scope of this discussion. They are well summarized the following way: The most powerful mob boss doesn't sleep well at night for three reasons: his enemies, his friends and his shame. Rational selfishness is never parasitic.

Re:IP Laws Are Obsolete and Unfair

[linuxrocks123]

"What you fail to grasp about your 'logic proof' is its origin: your own thoughts, desires and convictions. Regardless of whether or not you're selfish (which you are), whatever you honesly believe 'a selfish person' would desire can only be your own desire."

This is a reasonable argument. I now see the reasoning behind what I considered groundless personal attacks. I didn't see the reasoning until you just explicitly stated it here because it is severely flawed for two reasons. The first is that the statements were hypothetical. The second is that you assume your desired conclusion in your argument.

When you state that "whatever you honesly believe 'a selfish person' would desire can only be your own desire", you tacitly assume that everyone is purely selfish. You had me at first because the assumption is so subtle: a person would have purely selfish desires iff ("if and only if") that person is selfish. Thus, you're breaking the rules: whether or not all people are entirely selfish is what we are disputing. If your argument to prove that everyone is selfish rests on assuming that everyone is selfish, you haven't really said anything.

"There's no way around it. BUT, if you really do not wish to murder your family or leave your sick spouse, then your projection of this 'selfish person' is dishonest (which it is)."

We may have a definitional problem here. I hope we don't, because if we do, we have to resolve it before we can continue any sort of rational debate. If we can't agree, then we don't have enough common assumptions to be able to convince each other of anything. In the above statement, you seem to be defining "selfish" as something similar to "self motivating", which is not my understanding of the word. In short, if you are saying that if a person takes an action of his own free will, it must be a selfish action by the definition of selfishness, I disagree with your definition.

Please allow me to give you my definition now. The following paragraph assumes the existence of an unselfish person for the purpose of illustrating my definition of selfishness. Since you think no such person exists, you will disagree with the truth of these statements. That's okay, because I'm just trying to illustrate my definition of selfishness, not prove you wrong. I think my definition is commonly accepted. If you disagree with me, we need to resolve the definitional ambiguity before continuing to debate whether all people are selfish. I'll probably just take your definition and see if I still disagree with you if you're operating under a different definition because I don't like debating definitions. However, if you do disagree with me, I request that you make your own definition of selfishness explicit.

That a person has a desire does not imply it is a selfish desire. Some desires are selfish, and some are unselfish. A selfish desire is a desire to act in a way that would further a person's own well-being. Sometimes acting out the desire would harm another person's well-being, but not always. An unselfish desire is a desire to act in a way that furthers the well-being of another person or group of people. Sometimes acting out an unselfish desire would harm a person's own well-being, but not always.

Just to be clear: under my definition of selfishness, the above paragraph is true iff there exists a person who is not selfish. If you agree that the existence of an unselfish person implies that the above paragraph is true, I think we have similar enough definitions that we can debate rationally. As a side effect, you should agree that your statement that "if you really do not wish to murder your family or leave your sick spouse, your projection of this 'selfish person' is dishonest" is false if I am an unselfish person, whether or not I am married (I never said I was). As a person who is not entirely selfish, I have unselfish desires, and one of those desires could easily be a desire to take care of those I love.

Re:IP Laws Are Obsolete and Unfair

[unknownideal]

To counter the notion that my statement was predicated upon the assumption of you being selfish, I included the clause "Regardless of whether or not you're selfish." Really if you think about it, any attempt to imagine what a selfish person desires, by anyone, will necessarily evoke their own desires. And if it doesn't, the exercise was only self-deception. (If you say you're referring to what you believe other people desire... then I suppose you're imagining a selfish man who desires... what? What you yourself desire. Same thing.)

That you find these facts "hypothetical"--as if a person can think something other than what he thinks, then, presumably, act in a manner inconsistent with his thoughts--is what I often refer to as a "startling disconnect from reality."

But this is like talking about a break-dancing unicorn--can he break-dance? You're right that that's the way I see it. However, my argument does not hinge upon its frame of reference. It rests on two main premises: 1) that people act to obtain and keep that which they value and nothing else 2) that these values are often warped and irrational due to the effects of various societal pressures and religious delusions.

Selfish is simple word to define considering its roots, and I tend toward Webster's 1828 Dictionary for its preference of Latin roots over definitional tends. "SELF-ISH - Regarding one's own interest chiefly or solely; influenced in actions by a view to private advantage." That is my definition.

And again, implicit in the definition of selfishness, is the concept of rationality. No irrational act can ever ultimately be selfish. That's not so obvious, but neither is it incredibly abstruse.

Now let's go back to this break-dancing unicorn of yours, the altruistic man. To start, the notion of a selfless desire is a contradiction in terms: desires originate from nowhere but the self. An organism cannot act without some inner compulsion; the mind cannot spontaneously order a muscle in the absence of intent; the thing that acts cannot act out of reference to itself. The notion that persons can act out of reference to themselves is, again, that "startling disconnect from reality" to which I often refer. This is the pitfall of all but a handful of philosophies, incidentally.

Re:IP Laws Are Obsolete and Unfair

[linuxrocks123]

"To counter the notion that my statement was predicated upon the assumption of you being selfish, I included the clause 'Regardless of whether or not you're selfish.'"

You did ... but then proceeded to assume selfishness anyway.

"That you find these facts 'hypothetical'--as if a person can think something other than what he thinks, then, presumably, act in a manner inconsistent with his thoughts--is what I often refer to as a 'startling disconnect from reality.'"

They weren't facts. They were hypothets. The statement was, basically, IF (someone offered you money to kill your family AND you were purely selfish) THEN you would do it. There's no disconnect from reality. Even if one were selfish, he wouldn't kill his family by that statement unless someone offered him money to. I could define p's and q's and do a full logic proof for you, but I somehow doubt that would help you...

"...my argument does not hinge upon its frame of reference. It rests on two main premises: 1) that people act to obtain and keep that which they value and nothing else..."

That sounds like an assumption of selfishness to me. Let's look at your definition and see if it does to you.

"'"SELF-ISH - Regarding one's own interest chiefly or solely; influenced in actions by a view to private advantage.' That is my definition."

"People act to obtain and keep that which they value and nothing else" versus "regarding one's own interest chiefly or solely". Where do you see a difference between those? You can't take an assumption away by rephrasing it.

"To start, the notion of a selfless desire is a contradiction in terms: desires originate from nowhere but the self."

Well, you've taken the dictionary definition as your definition now, and that only selfish things originate from the self does not follow from your definition. A counterexample is that a desire not "regarding one's own interest chiefly or solely" or "influenced ... by a view to private advantage" (and I know I mutated that a little, but the dictionary definition defines selfish relative to people instead of abstract concepts) would be unselfish. For example, I desire that less logging be done in the Amazon rain forest. Whether logging is done in the Amazon rain forest doesn't really affect me too much personally, but I think it's important for all mankind that the logging be controlled. I don't care enough about it to do anything, but other people no more affected by it than I am do care, and they take unselfish actions based on their caring when they get together with picket signs and shout about it to try and get the logging to stop.

"An organism cannot act without some inner compulsion; the mind cannot spontaneously order a muscle in the absence of intent."

Yes it can. It's called a reflex. If a doctor hits you on the knee with a special type of hammer and you don't kick, there's something wrong with you.

"...the thing that acts cannot act out of reference to itself. The notion that persons can act out of reference to themselves is, again, that 'startling disconnect from reality' to which I often refer. This is the pitfall of all but a handful of philosophies, incidentally."

Since I'm having enough trouble getting you to see zero-order logic, I'd really rather not expand this already off-topic debate to less well-grounded philosophy as well. Most of the above makes no sense anyway. For example, what do you mean by a thing's "reference to itself"? It's so vague as to be meaningless.

Re:IP Laws Are Obsolete and Unfair

[unknownideal]

Any attempt to imagine what a selfish person desires, by anyone, will necessarily evoke their own desires. When you ask yourself "what does a selfish person desire" or any question at all, where does the answer come from? Unless you believe that some external force provides these answers, the only possible origin is your own consciousness. The answer supplied by your own consciousness to the question "what does a selfish person desire" can be nothing but what you desire and not someone else. If the answer was not what you desire, then it was dishonest, and an attempt to deceive yourself. I cannot further simplify this point.

Instead of "it rests" let's go with "it's comprised of." Again, poor choice of words, but if you were interested in understanding my arguments as much as attempting to defeat them, this would be obvious.

Yes, the dictionary definition is exactly what I said, only leaving room for another reality wherein it is possible not to be selfish. I write with the knowledge that everyone is selfish. This doesn't automatically make my argument circular, it only makes me consistent. If I attempted to write from any other point of view than my own, I would be demonstrating that very "startling disconnect from reality" I abhor, and would be implicitly maintaining a contradiction.

The context of this discussion is the concepts of selfishness and altruism. That you mention reflexes, which have nothing to do with how we make choices, suggests that you make no distinction between not only impulsive whim and conscious choice, but between your conscious mind and the nerve-endings in your knee caps.

When you divorce an argument of its context by considering each clause in a vacuum (answering one cohesive thought in several quotes, replacing semi-colons with periods, etc), you lose its meaning, and additionally, confess that certain levels of abstract thought are inaccessible to you. Try answering each paragraph.

Re:IP Laws Are Obsolete and Unfair

[linuxrocks123]

"Any attempt to imagine what a selfish person desires, by anyone, will necessarily evoke their own desires. When you ask yourself 'what does a selfish person desire' or any question at all, where does the answer come from? Unless you believe that some external force provides these answers, the only possible origin is your own consciousness. The answer supplied by your own consciousness to the question 'that does a selfish person desire' can be nothing but what you desire and not someone else."

Consciousness (I'll assume we both know what it means) is the source of the answers to those questions. However, the answers don't necessarily come from one's own desires; the answer can be gleaned from observing how other people, who are selfish, behave, or even by imagining how a hypothetical Iago woud act. I let you define selfishness, but now you have to stick with the definition you chose. If you defined selfish as "originating from the self", I would agree with you that all desires are selfish, but you would be meaning something different. You are trying to use both definitions at once and are thus committing a logical fallacy.

"Instead of 'it rests' let's go with 'it's comprised of.' Again, poor choice of words, but if you were interested in understanding my arguments as much as attempting to defeat them, this would be obvious."

I am interested in understanding your arguments. I think I see what you mean, but believe you are getting there by changing definitions midstream, which you can't do. Yes, every desire comes from the self, but every desire isn't necessarily aimed at furthering the self. Do you see what I'm saying?

"Yes, the dictionary definition is exactly what I said, only leaving room for another reality wherein it is possible not to be selfish. I write with the knowledge that everyone is selfish. This doesn't automatically make my argument circular, it only makes me consistent. If I attempted to write from any other point of view than my own, I would be demonstrating that very 'startling disconnect from reality' I abhor, and would be implicitly maintaining a contradiction."

It is possible to consciously force oneself to temporarily disregard an assumption/bias. This isn't maintaining a contradiction; believing two contradictory things is indeed bad. However, it is disregarding something you know to be true in order to prove it true independent of taking it as an axiom. A lot of my argument has been trying to prove to you that there is an inconsistency in believing that everyone is selfish and simultaneously believing that private charity exists and that neither I nor most other people would act in a purely selfish manner.

"The context of this discussion is the concepts of selfishness and altruism. That you mention reflexes, which have nothing to do with how we make choices, suggests that you make no distinction between not only impulsive whim and conscious choice, but between your conscious mind and the nerve-endings in your knee caps."

Well, that was a little shallow I'll admit. I was trying to show that everything doesn't take place in the consciousness, but we haven't even defined consciousness. Is someone who is sleepwalking conscious? Let's just drop this point; don't quote the dictionary on consciousness since it will simply use equally vague words to define it.

"When you divorce an argument of its context by considering each clause in a vacuum (answering one cohesive thought in several quotes, replacing semi-colons with periods, etc), you lose its meaning, and additionally, confess that certain levels of abstract thought are inaccessible to you. Try answering each paragraph."

I don't respond to pure nonsense. If I have still not responded to part of your actual argument, please tell me and I will do so now. I assure you that abstract thought is not beyond my capacity. You, however, since you so much abhor a "startling disconnect from reality", admit that you cannot disregard your own assumptions long enough to prove them to yourself or anyone else. The inability to prove anything you feel strongly about is a sign of extremely shallow thinking.

By the way, this discussion will no doubt be archived soon, so perhaps we should consider this in our journals.

Re:IP Laws Are Obsolete and Unfair

[unknownideal]

I'm sorry, I completely forgot about this discussion. But, I don't really have the time to keep up with sort of exchange anymore anyway, so I'm going to have to call it quits.

ISP's financial interests

[Hoch]

"In the long run a working copyright law is also a condition for their business - we are in the same boat since we have the content and they have the means of distribution," said Pontén.

In the US, many ISPs are a division of a larger media corporation. Therefore, their finances come from hawking such media (See AOL etc.). The obvious connection to this is that the ISP will not stop their parents from impeding their customers. In Sweeden, however, this appears to not be the case. The ISPs make money from their ability to move data. They don't care what kind of data that they are moving, if they did, they would lose money. If a customer gets sued, they are out that customer, and the people that downgrade their internet packages because they stopped using so much bandwidth for fear of a lawsuit. The media corporations are not equipped to make use of the ISPs bandwidth, so banding together with them would hurt the ISPs bottom line. Media company's solution: Try to buy them out and stop competition. To stop competition, they either have to get laws passed, or advertise more about how great their music videos are.

This brings us to the future problem. A newcomer ISP can always offer cheaper service if they only provide bandwidth and not media. To combat this the MediaISPs will make more complicated rate structures which obfuscate the fact that the customers are paying more, in hopes of staying around longer. This will be alongside their legal fight to gain more powers associated with IP. The newcomer ISP competes only if there is sufficient free content on the internet to justify the bandwidth.

Give us legal TV show downloads

[MagerValp]

Of course, the ISP:s aren't refusing to identify customers because they're a bunch of swell guys. They make a bunch of money selling fast broadband connections, where the faster ones are primarily used by file sharers. Forwarding warning letters would also be a bunch of extra work, and they have nothing to gain - they'll just lose customers.

The only solution is legal download services. TV shows, which make up a large part of the traffic, are distributed in an antiquated fashion, and the technology is here to change that.

Imagine if music was distributed the same way that TV shows are. The new song of your favourite artist would only play on radio stations in the US, where it's interrupted by commercials halfway through. After a couple of months it'd start to play on radio stations in the rest of the world. Only after a year would you be able to buy the CD in a store, but it would be protected by DRM so you couldn't pick it up a few months early on your visit abroad. Bizarre, isn't it?

Let's hope iTunes TV download service turns out well, so we can finally get fast, legal downloads at a decent price.

Re:Give us legal TV show downloads

[shani]

Um, why not just obey the law?

And just say "no" while you're at it!

Irish ISP's Suck at this..

[Celt]

In Ireland both Eircom (www.eircomsucks.com) and BT Ireland (www.btirelandsucks.com) have agreed in court that if any Music or Movie company asks them for customer information that they'll give it to them.

All in all a crap situation compared to Sweden :(

Re:Irish ISP's Suck at this..

[spyrochaete]

The situation in Ireland isn't necessarily different from that in Sweden. The Irish arrangement was settled in court, whereas the Swedish ISPs are being contacted by the movie and music industries privately. The point is that companies are not the law, the law is the law.

Montreal, Canada, had a similar situation which was featured in newspapers. The CRIA (Canadian RIAA) petitioned the city's ISPs to translate IP addresses to subscriber names in order to prosecute individuals. All ISPs but one refused. Why that one ISP would cave into the demands of a fellow company is a mystery, but they were certainly not required to do so.

Good luck to Ireland, Sweden, Canada, and everyone! Pay to broadcast, free to own!

Re:When's the next flight to Stockholm?

[Chosen Reject]

You have been sacked!

Huh?

[Quiet_Desperation]

It's called multitasking.

Not such a big deal

[k98sven]

The Swedish Data Inspection Board gave the APB a green-light to collect IP adresses.

It's not quite a big deal, since the anti-pirate folks already can do that legally in a number of countries (such as the US) which don't have strict data-protection laws.

And the ISPs are not only doing the right thing but probably the only legal thing, since it'd quite likely violate the very same data-protection laws if they gave information about their customers to a private third party without permission from either the government or their customers.

The "Anti-Pirate Bureau" isn't a government agency after all. And while the USA seems to have happily handed over law-enforcement to the copyright holders, Europe has not. So far.

Re:RIAA/MPAA to consumers: Resistance is futile

[tehwebguy]

it's too bad we don't have a march like that, because it would likely be more in the range of MANY million people.

Pirates are supported by ordinary citizens

[mowler2]

In polls in swedens biggest newspaper, with 80000 respondants, on this question: "Is it morally right to download movies and music illegaly?"

> 85% answered yes.

The pirates and antipirates has debated in newspaper, television and the "piratbyrån" (pro piracy organization) has even published a book which has recieved good critics. The sum of all this is that the pirates is seen as normal humans that download stuff on internet and the antipirates are greedy corporate a**es. Its not hard do figure out which side will win the hearts of the population.

This has even gone so far as the minister of justice has stated in media that "with the new anti-piracy laws the police should not go hunt for teenagers downloading music, but for big scale for-profit copying"

Since we have a democracy the only outcome I can see in the long run is that not-for-profit private piracy will become legal, even two parties in our parliament has expressed support for piracy.

Also, the results of a lawsuit will be released next week which will determine wether it will even be possible for police to request information on IPs from ISPs when they suspect piracy. One pirate has ben sued because he shared a movie on the internet, if he gets anything below prison swedish privacy laws will make it impossible for the police to request identy of IPs in the future. (which says that for the identity to be reviled for the police it is required that the crime commited has prison as one possible punishment).

(* with piracy I mean copying of music/movies over the internet without any money going to the owner of the work).

Re:Pirates are supported by ordinary citizens

[Travelsonic]

(* with piracy I mean copying of music/movies over the internet without any money going to the owner of the work).

If you do not exclude the independent music artists or other artists who distribute their stuff for free, this definition is flawed to some degree, since piracy and/or copyright infringement involves copying copyrightwed works without permission from the copyright holder.

^_^

Jet city plance crash caused by stolen IP

[Anonymous Coward]

How many jet city bands will crash and burn because of
people stealing IP. Can you make a link between the two?
Enough to drive the loop for ever and ever and ever!

Warning the MASONIC ORDER IS A SATANIC CULT and they
are stealing business IP using the LOOP!!!

Price Point

[Ced_Ex]

Musicians don't make music to just give it away (some do) but they also need to eat. I have no problems handing over some cash for a CD I like.

What I don't like doing is handing over 25.99 for a cd, and having 23.99 go to a label, .50 to a another schmuck, and then .50 to the musician.

Exactly! The music industry has obviously skipped the class on economics about pricing.

People are fed up of paying that kind of money for the product they receive. This is evident with the iTunes revolution. Had they just priced a CD accordingly, sales would be just as strong since demand is always there for good stuff. It's too bad they can't look beyond their dreams of printing money to realize that.

Should be normal

[houghi]

In Europe a lot of countries have stricter privacy laws then elswhere. If anybody except law askes for information with my provider and they give it, I have won my case, because the evidence was not recieved in a lawfull way.

I could even sue my provider.

Now if they just forward the mail, I can just ignore it and wait for a lawsuit, wich brings me back to step one above.

In Belgium, if you just fileshare and not sell, there is a pretty big chance that they will put your case at the bottom of the pile. The law in Belgium already once told them they would not go after each and every file-sharer. They will spend their time with people who try to make money with it.

Innocent artists?

[hackwrench]

Don't you know that no one is innocent?

From Pat Bennatar's Invincible:

We can't afford to be innocent.

legal issue

[io-waiter]

Recently APB got a permit to stor IP adresses ( since it is personal data they need a permit).

This came after it was brougth to light that APB did break the "personal information law", they therefore sought and recived a permit to store certain information.

As a of this ISP also need a permit to handle the data and are not allowed to just hand it over, also it means that the ips in the register needs to be handled according to the law and that anyone may request all and any information about themselves from the register.

Details in swedish http://www.nyteknik.se/art/42730

Well...

[Revellion]

It's not so strange that people download the music for free. Since usually if you purchase a CD nowadays. not only is it pricey compared to what it used to be. but usually only 1-2 tracks are actually good. the rest is just pure shit. :|

Re:Well...

[PhysicsPhil]

It's not so strange that people download the music for free. Since usually if you purchase a CD nowadays. not only is it pricey compared to what it used to be. but usually only 1-2 tracks are actually good. the rest is just pure shit. :|

If it's any consolation, most of an album's tracks were crap when they were recorded on vinyl or casette tapes as well. Time has just changed the recording medium and given us the technology to download the tracks.

ISPs also doing it for the money.

[mc6809e]

This idea that ISPs are being noble here is silly. They're doing what they do for the money as much as anyone.

Fact is, many people that pay for an Internet connection do so in part so they can swap music. Getting free
music is part of the value of that connection for them.

Now put yourself in the place of the ISP. You have customers paying you so they can have access to this free music.
Why would you want to stop this? You don't have to pay for the music yourself, but you get a financial benefit from it.

So I don't see anything heroic about these ISPs. Helping to make sure their customers can get free music helps
their bottom line.

Re:ISPs also doing it for the money.

[justins]

When p2p first took off file traders were enemies of the ISP, since they used vastly more resources than everyone else and paid the same amount. (in most places) Is the percentage of users who are doing heavy p2p now so high that they are the "mainstream"?

Decline of Piracy?

[schmaustech]

It is interesting that the entertainment industry thinks that by removing file sharing software and sharing, they will wipe out piracy.

What about those who maintain personal FTP sites where access is via invitation only?

You'll never wipe out piracy, that is like saying you'll wipe out greed.

File Sharer's manifesto

[Spy der Mann]

The fight for freedom has many fronts. This front's name is freedom of speech (for music writers, that is - if a record label won't publish some singers' song because it doesn't benefit them or because of government crap, how effective his message will be? In this case, "Art wants to be free" (free as in freedom, not as in beer).

First: I'd gladly buy a CD if it's cheap enough and it's worth it. I don't want to spend my money in a giant marketing apparatus promoting tours. People who go to the tours ARE ALREADY paying. If I'm not going, why should my money go to them? I don't want to spend twice on a product. On the other hand, if a musician puts up his website and has a "donate" button for some tour, i'd gladly click if I consider the artist good enough.

Second, if you had to choose between spending $100 on the poor, and giving them to record companies, which one would you choose? You kill no one by downloading a file. And I'd rather download a song from the internet than financing kidnapper bands or druglords who sell pirated goods on the street.

Third, you can't force a teenager to give away his money to the poor. But in the same way, you can't force him to feed the RIAA monster companies who are already obsolete anyway. Why invest money in something that has no reason to exist?

Fourth, The only reason people have to pay for music is because the RIAA has twisted the law in their favor, lobbing them with the money the customers have paid. If I'm spending money on a music as a government tax (in the form of lobbying), I have the right to decide what should be done with my money, don't I? I'd rather download a song and donate a dollar to the group, than paying $20 to the RIAA, who will only give about 50 cents (or less) to the group in question.

Finally, The RIAA has stolen a lot of money from customers. Is it wrong to want to take that money back?

These are some of the reasons file sharers believe it's not only "not wrong", but a just cause, to share files. One thing can be wrong and legal, or viceversa. The laws supporting evil monopolies like the RIAA can, and must go away.

(You can quote, copy and link to this as the "File Sharer's manifesto". This is free speech and belongs to the public domain - permission to correct spelling / grammar is granted)

Economics and rationality

[Create an Account]

Dude, rock on.

Who are the owners, or is only on loan?

[Famatra]

"Music, information, entertainment should be free! ... If the owner of said item wants it to be."

We, the public, are the owners. It is just on loan to the so called creators for a limited period of time, the period being copyright length.

I think it's time to severely reduce that copyright length. It may have made sense before but not when when costs, and thus the risks, of publishing is reduced due to online avenues for distribution.

Re:Who are the owners, or is only on loan?

[TooMuchEspressoGuy]

"We, the public, are the owners. It is just on loan to the so called creators for a limited period of time, the period being copyright length."

Okay... in that case, we, the public, are the owners of your house. It's just on loan to its so-called "owner" (you) for a limited period of time, the period being a length of time decided by the government.

I'm not saying I'm for patents or anything - in fact, I think that they should be abolished entirely - but to say that "the public" is the owner of something that YOU create/buy is just ludicrous.

Re:Who are the owners, or is only on loan?

[Tim C]

We, the public, are the owners. It is just on loan to the so called creators for a limited period of time, the period being copyright length.

What right do you have to claim ownership of my thoughts? Because that's what you're doing, when you tell me that you own what I create.

It may have made sense before but not when when costs, and thus the risks, of publishing is reduced due to online avenues for distribution.

The costs and difficulty of copying and publishing content have been greatly reduced, but the risks have not. Now that there is effectively no cost or effort barrier to copying (digital) content, anyone can do it, and so the risk is at least the same if not increased. I'm not arguing for extending copyright terms - anything but - but in a world where anyone can copy content, the risks for content publishers are higher than if no-one but they could copy it.

Re:Who are the owners, or is only on loan?

[arth1]

TooMuchEspressoGuy (763203) wrote:

Okay... in that case, we, the public, are the owners of your house. It's just on loan to its so-called "owner" (you) for a limited period of time, the period being a length of time decided by the government.

I'm not saying I'm for patents or anything - in fact, I think that they should be abolished entirely - but to say that "the public" is the owner of something that YOU create/buy is just ludicrous.

No, it's not. The public becomes the owner when the creator chooses, of his own free will, to transfer the ownership to the public in exchange for time limited copyrights and protection under the law. No-one forces that on the creator -- if he wants to sell copies of his work under a different scheme, like contracts, he is free to do so.

You *either* give the works to the public in exchange for time-limited copyright protection, *or* you keep on owning the work for as long as you like. You can't have your cake and eat it.

--
*Art

Re:Who are the owners, or is only on loan?

[TooMuchEspressoGuy]

So, I'd assume that you're using "transfers ownership to the public" as a synonym for "sells his/her work to the public"? How does this specific method of selling (which you haven't specified) differ from the other example that you offered (selling your work via contracts)?

Re:Who are the owners, or is only on loan?

[Famatra]

"The costs and difficulty of copying and publishing content have been greatly reduced, but the risks have not."

Of course the risks of discreased. Before the publisher would print up 500,000 copies at tremendous cost, and if only one person bought a copy then would be out the excess. Since classical publishing only works in volume, to get the presses set etc., they really had no alternative but to charge high to allieve the risks they lost on.

Now a days there is no upfront risk of losing large sums of money if you releaes your material online or with micropublishing. Thus less risks = less incentives necessary, incentives such as copyright.

Consumers to RIAA/MPAA:

[Spy der Mann]

RIAA/MPAA to consumers: Resistance is futile

Consumers to RIAA/MPAA: Your existance is futile.

Re:RIAA/MPAA to consumers: Resistance is futile

[Erixxxxx]

Uh, the Million Man March had nothing to do with civil disobedience....what are you talking about?

Civil disobedience in this case just means smuggling. Just as smoking a joint when its against the law is civil disobedience, downloading from file shares when its against the law is civil disobedience. When it comes to file sharing, there is allready civil disobedience by far more than just a million people.

Civil disobedience is just ignoring a law as if it doesnt exist. Sure, you can hold hands in a crowd in front of the white house and yell at the top of your lungs that you arent going to obey a law; that is civil disobedience too, its just stupid civil disobedience.

Go ahead and reveal yourself to those who want to imprison you, make it easy for them...me, Ill just sit here and dowload music while smoking a joint.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

thepiratebay.org

[erroneus]

I'm a little slow today... so does all of this mean "thepiratebay.org" is going to have trouble?

Re:RIAA/MPAA to consumers: Resistance is futile

[stanmann]

Civil disobedience is breaking the law publicly and demanding to be punished to the full extent of the law in order to demonstrate the wrongness of the law. It is similar to matyrdom, but is a deliberate act. it isn't something done in secret.

Read Thoreau.

change the rules of the game

[dowstreet]

music is easy to copy, live performances are not. it used to be that musicians made a living by performing (many still do). but to some there seems to be this sense that musicians have a right to earn money from copies of a single recording - 2hrs for a million dollars. certainly, the world is better due to the existence of music. but changing the rules is unlikely to eliminate music, just lengthen the tail.

artists give away copies to increase attendence at live performances. songwriters get paid when musicians perform their music. musicians get paid when they perform. nobody gets rich for selling a bunch of copies of something that is easy to copy. a copy of a song has become a commodity with a cost approaching 0, yet there is no way I can go down the street and play a show like (insert favorite band here)...

large numbers of musicians who love to perform get by with a decent living (maybe with a second job). really amazing musicians make some money. industry created pop-superstars fade away.

Re:When's the next flight to Stockholm?

[DeBeuk]

No realli! She was Karving her initals on the møøse with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist, and star of many Norwegian møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst Nordfink".

Mynd you, møøse bites kan be pretty nasti ...

Nice Grammar

[TheBrutalTruth]

"We've previously reported on Swedish anti-downloading laws before." From Missouri? :)

is this the same...

[KillShill]

organization that planted "evidence" on computers in order to make the case for widespread "piracy"?

yeah, i trust them.

indeed i do.

why plant evidence when there's millions upon millions of people commiting "piracy"?

sort of like why forge evidence of iraq importing yellowcake from niger if they had WMDs.

they have delegitimized themselves. their word means nothing.

hope sweden's population kicks their lying asses and gets those thieving copyright cartels off their backs.

Swedish music?

[LightningBolt!]

Are they really making such a fuss over these bands?

It comes to no surprise

[Joe the Lesser]

"The offspring of riches: Pride, vanity, ostentation, arrogance, tyranny"-Twain

Why Are Your Mod Points Not Qualified?

[Quirk]

I tagged you some time ago for a few reasons, mostly good, but, also because your posts are usually, in fact, seemingly, always modded 5.

Your posts are seeming always modded 5 but never with a qualifier. To the best of my knowledge your posts are the only posts modded without a qualifier. Why is that?

Readability is key.

[Idontpostmuch]

"...but a few calls from TT revealed that requests from APB would be ignored."

Praps continued:

"The CJD of the AFT is really gonna WEX, HH, GRE, or even UBN."

Come on guys. I read this site for news. Let's try and use words. If a commenter says AFAIK or IMHO, that's one thing, but the basics of the story need to be in the post.

Re:Readability is key.

[pixas]

In case you're still wondering what those acronyms stand for, TT is a Swedish news agency (Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå), and APB is of course the Swedish Anti Piracy Bureau.

I'm not sure that is possible...

[maillemaker]

This, I can guarantee. If the Internet is changed such that it is no longer possible to be anonymous, people will either make an anonymous, separate internet, or an anonymous peer to peer service that goes through several anonymous peers before reaching its location, a la Freenet.

The problem is, your data pipeline always ends with wherever you are. And your ISP knows where that end is, and who it belongs to.

Yes, you can obfuscate your dataline by going through various means to make it difficult to follow, but it is not impossible to follow, or else the data you are downloading could not find you either.

I suspect that this is going to be the second edge to a very sharp double edged sword.

The first edge was this: If data exists, it can be copied. This edge is what has doomed and will doom efforts at DRM through encryption.

But the second edge will be this: If data can be copied, the destination can be found.

Just as any DRM scheme can be defeated, I strongly suspect that any anonymizing routine can be defeated.

Sure it's difficult. And today, perhaps it is difficult enough that you can be pretty sure no one is going to take the effort to hunt you down.

But if they pass laws that make it so that the corporations moving and handling the data - the ISPs and Telecoms, have to provide tools and means to see where data is flowing to and from, this could get very easy very fast.

maillemaker

Information Wants to be Free

[xeno-cat]

"Music, information, entertainment should be free! ... If the owner of said item wants it to be."

You misunderstand this statement. What "information wants to be free" is refering to is that it takes a lot more work to keep information proprietary then it does to let it be free. Therefore the natural state of information is to be free. Anything else is against Nature and makes baby Jesus cry. It has nothing to do with what the "owner" wants.

Kind Regards

Re:When's the next flight to Stockholm?

[lee7guy]

Btw, it goes like this:

First we state that girls require Time as well as Money:

Girls = Time x Money

And as we all know Time is Money:

Time = Money

Therefore:

Girls = Money x Money = (Money)^2

And because "money is the root of all evil":

Money = sqrt(Evil)

Therefore:

Girls = (sqrt(Evil))^2

And we are forced to conclude that:

Girls = Evil

The only catch in this explanation is that "as well as" is not definately the same as "times"

Re:Be a good consumer, damnit.

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"We would never have heard of their artists if they didn't exist."

I don't see any evidence supporting this. While I agree that the structure of music distribution would be (and eventually *will* be) very different, I don't think that our current structure is necessary for music to exist. Companies want you to believe that their business model is indispensible, but that is propaganda.

Sweden: the true bastion of freedom.

[CyricZ]

Indeed, day in and day out Sweden proves to be the world's true bastion of freedom. When nonsense like this arises, the right of the individual are made most important.

We often hear about how America is such a great supporter of liberty, but then you realize that most of these copyright-related trouble originated in America, and involve American companies. But perhaps that's just because America today is where Sweden was 900 years ago; financially pillaging other nations. Today it's American and American-corporation-dictated WIPO copyright law ruining the freedoms of the rest of the world, rather than Viking warships. At least Sweden showed that with some time, even the most ruthless of nations can become the leaders in peace, freedom and liberty. Unfortunately, we might have to wait a thousand years for that to happen with the United States.

Re:Sweden: the true bastion of freedom.

[Erixxxxx]

Yes, and that goes a long way to explaining why more adult Swedes live and work outside of Sweden than in it.

Brilliant!

[jahudabudy]

And I always thought Courtney Love was a brain-dead, no talent media whore. I was wrong about brain-dead, maybe I should download some of her music and give it a listen...
Thanks for the link, a really good read.

A summary.

[Bezben]

Lets summarise:

>The **AA sucks. (+5, Insightful)
>>Yes they should all die and their pets should be raped. (+4, Interesting)
>Won't someone think of the artists! (+4, Interesting)
>> Yes, stealing songs is wrong. (-1, Troll)
>>> *five million posts on the correctness of calling it stealing*
>>>> Information wants to be free! (+4, Funny)
>>>>> *several thousand government/big business conspiracy posts*

And now my ten cents. Music is over priced, yes. And yes, the labels churn out crap, because largely that is what the average person wants, remember, we are not the average consumer. The artists do deserve to make money from their music. The **aa practice sleazy tactics at best. Downloaders often abuse the fair use rights.

So, really, the **aa fuck us over in terms of taking the public domain, and limiting our fair use rights. We fuck them over by sharing what we have with others. Both are wrong. I'd argue that theirs is typically more wrong (don't try and argue that sharing 10,000 mp3s with random people is fair, please) but the real point for me is that they have the power/money to make theirs *legally* right...

Re:No, it makes sense, you're just too dim

[Rycross]

No, read it again. And again. Its obvious what he's saying. He's saying "I've paid for it once. I won't pay for it again, but I do expect to listen to it again, since I've paid for it already". Think about what that means. If I paid $15 for a CD, do I own the song? What am I getting rights to? Anticipating your answer, if I'm buying the right to listen to that song, then I shouldn't be charged for it again.

He payed $10 to attend a performance. He was paying for his attendance at his performance, not the CD, nor the right to listen to it in perpetuety. As far as buying a CD, the industry wants it both ways. I disagree with this position.

My personal opinion is that you are buying the actual CD, which means you are free to copy it for personal use (but not for distribution as that would violate copyright).

That still does not explain why he is paying for music if he believes it should be free.

That's a perfectly logical and rational argument. Its even reasonable. Best of all, its consistent.

Doesn't seem consistent or rational to me. If I go to a movie, then I understand that I'm paying to see the movie performed that one time in that one venue. If I buy the DVD then I understand that I'm buying a product that entitles me to view that as many times as I want in any way that I want, but not to give it away for free to other people.

And it certainly isn't consistent to say that entertainment should be free and then go and pay for it.

If you dont' under stand that argument, that speaks more to your reading comprehension than any inherent flaw in his argument.

I understand the argument. I just think its inconsenstent and irrational. My reading comprehension is just fine, but I notice you had trouble reading the rest of my post and argument which explains my position.

Every time one of these type of articles is posted

[readpunk]

I always do the exact same thing.

Point one, no what they are doing is not in anyway unexpected.

Point two, it is perfectly legal and within their rights the same way if you found a tax loophole and exploited it or something similar is perfectly legal and within your rights.

Point three, corporations don't give a fuck about ethics so stop trying to convince them they need to because they never will.

Point four, if you honestly are opposed to this then grow a spine and oppose capitalism and copyrights completely.

Point five, why should we be having (slashdotters of course not the mystified quote... "masses") any issues in this regard anyway? Apparently geeks/hackers/nerds have horrible taste in music.

Here is the offer I always make. You like a specific genre or a couple different ones, message me, e-mail me, use a pigeon with a note and I'll try and give you as much decent independent music that borders on or is within that genre so you can stop listening to the beasts tunes and start listening to real human beings who don't want to charge $40 to sit three kilometers away from them and be turned deaf.

State of the insanity

[Hannes Eriksson]

So the European equivalent of the MPAA/RIAA will have succeeded in shutting down file sharing of copyrighted material in Sweden only to see it pop up elsewhere in the world.

Actually, they have not succeeded in anything except that they are now allowed to store and process personal information about file sharers. Recently the data board classified IP-adresses as personal information, which meant they needed permission to store and process it without the users consent. They now have this permission. However, since it is now clear that they are subject to this law (called PUL, which means something like Law of Personal Information), they are also required to tell the registered person about the registration. In order to do this they need to know who has a particular IP, and only the ISP can help with this, but they refuse to cooperate. It is all very confusing and amusing to follow.

(bla bla bla IANAL but living in .se bla bla bla)

...and since IP addresses are now regarded as "personal information" one has to be extra careful handling it (because of privacy concerns). Actually, it might be illegal for an ISP to forward a cease-and-desist/general-threat/I-will-scare-you-w ith-this-pillow letter addressed to an IP of one of its file-sharing customers since the IP address is "personal information" that they have not the (exceptional) right to process in that way (need to seek permission with Datainspektionen). No-one really knows for sure right now.

Oh, and as a side note: Antipiratbyrån (the BSA/IFPI/$local_equivalent in .se) is trying to use screenshots as evidence in legal action against file sharers. Several create-your-own-evidence automatic web screenshot sites launched.

Re:State of the insanity

[lc_overlord]

Speaking of witch, here are two of evidence creators, use them to sue your best friends.
the evidence machine
the other evidence machine
Unfortunatly they are all in swedish, but some of you sould be smart enough to make them work.

what about spammers?

[geekee]

"That seems like exactly the right thing to do to me, actually. Not that I think that copyright infringement is something that necessarily should be allowed, mind you, but if somebody's done something wrong, then it's the job of the police to investigate - not private companies'. And the fact that Antipiratbyrån seems to have planted evidence in the past (search for it, I'm too lazy to look up the story; Slashdot covered it) just shows again why this is important.
"

So you think ISPs should protect spammers as well, I guess, based on your arguement.

Re:RIAA/MPAA to consumers: Resistance is futile

[Erixxxxx]

Youre describing just so much adolescent posturing; just as stupid as martydom. You wish to empirically demonstrate to whatever govt that they chose the correct strategy to flush out the ones they seek. Youre just saving them money on having to go out and find you. How noble.

Yes, stand up, paint a target on your back; go to prison. Boy, youll sure show them huh? Thatll teach the govt....how dare they pass unjust laws. Yeah, teach them a lesson and rot in prison; they sure wont do that again. Im sure your family will be able to pay the bills while youre in jail with the noble feeling they get knowing you were In The Right; Im sure your kids wont mind being hungry cause Dads a Noble Fellow.

Ive read Thoreau, but I fail to see how the definition of a term as it was 150 odd years ago has anything to do with how a term is defined now. Words do not have static unshifting meaning, they change with time. Thats why we have dictionaries for words but not for numbers.

Re:RIAA/MPAA to consumers: Resistance is futile

[stanmann]

I'll go with the guy who invented the term for what it means over some Yahoo on slashdot.

Civil disobedience is about changing things. Thoreau, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, etc. You call the media, break the law and get arrested.


Civil disobedience means making the gamble that you are right with your liberty as the stake, since liberty is your goal, you gamble the liberty you have against the liberty you believe has been taken by an unjust law.

Besides this hurdle...

[Jugalator]

The Anti-piracy Bureau are also forced to inform everyone they register the IP address of in their databases, otherwise they aren't allowed to store the IP address according to Swedish computer privacy laws.

So... The APB then have problems with following this practice since the ISP's won't give them personal data (necessary to contact the user they log) without a police order, and it all turns into a kind of circular legal problem that benefits the file sharer, and makes the APB databases illegal if they'd keep registering IP's and bypassing the police. (in Sweden, an IP address is definitely considered private information you can't just register however you like; much like a social security number)

Personally, I believe this is more proof that our privacy safety nets are working as intended than that they're broken. If the APB find an IP address and want to register this one, they should really need to contact the police, and if they decide it's worth tracking up, let them proceed, and if not, force them to delete the IP address from their databases. That way, it's in the end the police that enforce our laws and not a private organization.

Re:When's the next flight to Stockholm?

[Husgaard]

There aren't many fjords in Sweden, but saying that there are none is false.

For example, there is Dynekilen. A small fjord in Bohuslän, a little north of Strømstad. Dynekilen is known for a naval battle in 1716.

Re:Civil Disobedience

[Erixxxxx]

but the concept of "civil disobedience" as a political tool and means for change depends on the visibility and public nature of the disobedience.

The problem with that is that it establishes the false dictum that a law is 'bad' or not merely depending on the number of people who protest it.

If 100 people stand around chanting songs protesting a law, they can safely be ignored, but if 1,000,000 people stand and chant protesting the same law, they cant be? At what random number in between 100 and 1,000,000 did it go from a good law to a bad law?

If its a bad law, its a bad law, regardless of how many people visibly protest, whether its one or one million. By simply ignoring the law and behaving as one would anyway, the law will not have the desired affect and it will be shown to be the bad law it is.

Re:obsolete

[1ucius]

With respect, I think you are missing the parent's point. . . there is nothing forcing you to buy from the major labels, other than your strong desire for the product they produce. If you think you can get as good a product from others, buy from them.

Re:Makes me laugh. - full of crap

[panxerox]

Where did you pluck that "THE JURY ABUSING ITS POWER" I've never seen any trial where the Judge overturned a "not guilty" trial verdict, perhaps "guilty" verdicts but never not guilty ones, either come up with cases or I declare you full of crap.

Re:RIAA/MPAA to consumers: Resistance is futile

[linuxrocks123]

"Ive [sic] read Thoreau, but I fail to see how the definition of a term as it was 150 odd years ago has anything to do with how a term is defined now. Words do not have static unshifting meaning, they change with time."

How profound! Good point! Let's look up civil disobedience and see what it means right now, shall we?

From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience%5 D:
"Protesters practice this non-violent form of civil disorder with the expectation that they will be arrested, or even attacked or beaten by the authorities. Protesters often undergo training in advance on how to react to arrest or to attack, so that they will do so in a manner that quietly or limply resists without threatening the authorities."

You lose. Badly.

You can argue Wikipedia as a source if you feel pedantic now that you have lost, and I'll admit that words mean whatever the listener wants them to mean. I have a different definition of civil disobedience than you do, but you're free to define the word however you want. Unless you define it sufficiently similar to the rest of us, though, you won't be able to communicate with anyone on the topic very well. You have demonstrated this quite clearly.

The filesharing debate

[phorm]

Is a symptom of a larger disease. It involves political corruption, and the ability for corporations to bribe politicians in order to buy new laws, and then throw frivolous lawsuits to bankrupt those who can't afford them.

Filesharing isn't just about music or movies, it's about the ability for large enterprises to enforce their values over a population that in majority doesn't support those values...something laws are support to also support.

The Artist

[oliverthered]

I think the problem is that 'The Artist' probably isn't.... The writer of the song is an artist, the write of the music is an artist, the choreographer is an artist, the makeup guy is an artist, the puppet that bounces about on stage miming the lyrics should defiantly not be called an artist, not by any stretch of the imagination and calling them artists only undermines the people that do all the creating, original work.

APB strikes out!

[Moxulu]

The Swedish Antipiratbyrån enforced their ISP control rights today, not going to the police but instead contacting the Swedish news show 'Rapport' disclosing that they'd found a major hub on top of the piracy chain. The gist was that the server running the hub was placed at SICS, the Swedish Institute of Computer Science, renown research institute partially funded by the Swedish state.

..or not.

[mattis_f]

Actually, I heard an interview with one of the persons who had drafted this law, and she said that it was specifically intended to 1) comply with EU regulations and 2) still allow people to make copies for their own personal use.

Plus ... The legal system in Sweden tends to be more flexible and common-sensical than the American system. I very very much doubt that any Swedish court would convict you of any crime in the situation described above. Unless, of course, you didn't actually break the original CD, but rather sold it... But that's a different story.

How to set up your friends for P2P...

[snowtigger]

Wanna set up your friends ? Just enter their name, IP and name of a copyright-protected file here and you'll get a nice screenshot prooving their guilt...
http://www.piratbyran.org/bevismaskinen/

This page was set up to proove how easy it is to forge evidence...

Ms Love practically plagiates Steve Albini

[Ricin]

who is a well known producer, and he says it shorter, better, and less drivlish. He also wrote it long before Love (and yes they KNOW eachother of course):

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html