Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Files Lawsuits Targeting Major Torrent Sites
diverge_s writes "Slyck news reports on a new wave of lawsuits the MPAA has filed against major Bit Torrent search sites including: Torrentspy, Isohunt, Torrentbox, Niteshadow and Bthub. From the article: '"Website operators who abuse technology to facilitate infringements of copyrighted works by millions of people are not anonymous - they can and will be stopped," said John G. Malcolm, Executive Vice President and Director of Worldwide Anti-Piracy Operations for the MPAA. "Disabling these powerful networks of illegal file distribution is a significant step in stemming the tide of piracy on the Internet."'"
You're either with us or you're with the terrorists
And we've seen what happens to the terrorists
Pick a side
I've bought about 200GBP of DVDs this year as a direct result of downloads from bittorrent. Just thought I'd mention.
From the article: The operators of these indexing sites appear surprised at the MPAA's decision to sue, as they have yet to receive any notification. "Funny, they didn't email me," Gary from ISOHunt said. "I'm not too concerned because we deal with copyright requests everyday, some of them from studios MPAA represents." "Justin" from TorrentSpy echoed Gary's skepticism. "I guess I will learn more when I see what they have filed exactly. [I'm] not sure why they are suing when we comply with DMCA requests but I guess we will learn more down the road."
http://www.sandstorming.com
like bittorrent see http://isohunt.com/dmca-copyright.php
A quick glance at TorrentSpy shows that they haven't given up, they're still dishing out torrents. They have a news story about it, but they don't seem to be too concerned.
I remember when the MPAA did this last time and the torrent sites shut down completely because it was in their subpoena (sp?) thing, so does this mean that TorrentSpy is defying the MPAA and (potentially) putting themselves up for harsher penalties?
I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
Search engines are not illegal in the USA. You can use a search engine to search for anything. You can use a search engine to find a prostitute or drugs and other forms of illegal "entertainment" so why does copyright infringement the ipso-facto crime of the century? There are a lot of illegal bitorrent files and there are a lot of legal files. I hope someone challenges the MPAA on this.
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
Thank you MPAA, I didn't know about a couple of those!
1. Boing Boing
2. Slyck Forums
3. Another blogger with some good quotes
4. Normality Net with more info
5. Amit's Page with even more commentary
Drive by linkings!
Enough with the "what is piracy" debate, enough with talking about fair use, enough with all the liberal bullshit.
I declare my rebellion!
I will download whatever I want off the internet. If it is copyable, it should be free - music, movies, software.
Corporations like the MPAA and the RIAA need to be abolished. They are part of the corporate framework which is turning this world into a global police state.
I stand with the movement of people that wants to share. We do not strive for a gluttony of personal wealth. We stand for the common good, for communal wealth.
Enough with the greed, enough with laws that liken pirates to terrorists, enough with wealth concentrated in the hands of the few.
Rise Up! Rebellion! Revolution!
And hang everyone from the yard-arm.
And an extra ration of rum to all who agree with me.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Without piracy, it's doubtful ANYBODY saw Stealth or The Island. Even for free, I couldn't sit through all of Stealth.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
Ho ho ho. So can I look forward to an addition to the a href="http://thepiratebay.org/legal.php">Pirate Bays legal threats page ?.
:)
P2P, torrents etc. are simply like having the best radio station and film channel in the world. It lets me try out stuff without spending my hard earned cash (an ever decreasing amount of which I have to spend on "non essentials" such as entertainment) so I know that I like something before I buy it.
Oh how the *AA dinosaurs futiley roared as the small furry mamalls took over their world
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
If you actually RTFA, the news server itself lists top 5 bittorent sites (mininova, piratebay ..) all of which are noticably missing from the sue list. I guess this is another 'we are suing 1 thief per year thus effectively stopping all criminality' article.
WTF "you make enough money already" what business ever thinks they make enough money?
audioLibre - freedom of music
NZB-Zone has been targetted along with binnews and a couple of others. It is interesting to note that they have only gone for nzb sites and not the actual usenet providers - they appear to have the same rights as ISPs when it comes to common carrier status, but I'm no lawyer.
1. How long has it been since you bought a physical music CD?
2. How long has it been since you were in an actual music store?
3. How long has it been since you bought a physical movie DVD?
1. I think I am at somewhere in the 3-4 years since I last bought a music CD
2. 3-4 year again - driving by a music store is like seeing a rotary phone - quaint and strange
3. I don't buy movies
The RIAA and their actions has moved me from a casual pirate who was happy to buy stuff I really liked to a hardcore pirate who is perfectly willing to screw my favorite artists out of my cash as long as it hurts the RIAA in even the smallest way.
Freedom for the Culture!!!
Sounds like you're speaking from experience?
An interesting but flawed philosophy. You seem to imply that if the IP holders were just scraping by and making ends meet, you would be happy for the torrent sites to be taken down?
Im just about making ends meet as a software develoepr, and one of my games is available as a torrent. No doubt this isnt exactly helping sales. So I suppose that the torrent sites you support check the financial data of each submitted torrent, will spot that I'm a solo developer who needs the cash, and decline to list torrents of my stuff right?
Bullshit. This is just freeloaders getting everything they can for free because they think they wont get caught. Dont insult everyones intelligence by dressing it up as some kind of robin hood tale.
Many things the **IA do is bullshit, but closing torrent sites that encourage illegal content is fine by me. Bittorrent is a superb system that works wonders for distributing game demos and movie trailers etc. By defending its usage to steal IP, your just going to bring the whole system down.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
That release has a bad aspect ratio. Get Syriana.2005.DVDSCR.PROPER.AC3.XViD-ShinBet instead.
- G.I Jew
I could use the banana I am going to eat for dinner to choke you. On the other hand, I could use a suit-case nuclear bomb as a doorstop.
Now given that both of these items have both legitimate and illegitimate uses, should they be treated the same under the law? Of course not, and the reason why should be obvious - the banana has few illegitimate or dangerous uses, and is overwhelmingly used legitimately. The nuclear bomb has few legitimate uses, while its illegitimate uses are many and extreme. Also, even when used legitimately it can generally be replaced by safe alternatives.
As illustrated in the above example, having some legitimate uses is not enough to avoid a ban, nor is having some illegitimate uses enough to justify one. Instead, we must weigh the legitimate and illegitimate uses against one another. The three primary factors in deciding whether legal restrictions would be useful are:
1: What is the ratio of legitimate to illegitimate uses?
2: What alternatives exist to the legitimate uses?
3: How effectively could a ban be enforced?
BitTorrent and the like score quite badly on the first two points - most BT traffic is illegitimate, and there are plenty of legal ways to distribute files. The only question is how effective would any sort of regulation of BT really be.
By the standards the MPAA is claiming for these suits, ANY ISP anywhere should be shut down because their internet connections are allowing the theft.
Shut them down, shut down the whole internet.
Hell, then go after Dell, Apple, HP, etc etc because the computers they make are used to steal movies and worse, as servers to distribute stolen movies.
Then go after CRT and LCD display makers, keyboard and mouse companies, speaker manufacturers, network card makers, router makers, and just wait until they start going after the electric utilities for providing the power used to steal movies.
And the thieves need places to live, food to eat, and possibly jobs to supply the money to buy the food, so go after their homes, their cupboards and their jobs too.
And eyeglass and contact lens companies for making it possible to see these movies. Heck, just fire off some nukes and blind everyone. That'll keep the movies safe.
Best anti-theft ever: just don't make the movies in the first place, then sue for lost profits and loss of business! Brilliant! I should trademark this one!
"Disabling these powerful networks of illegal file distribution is a significant step in stemming the tide of piracy on the Internet."
Interesting choice of metaphor. It brings to mind an image of a 5-year old kid at the beach building a wall out of sand to "hold back the tide."
I had to make an account just to respond to this. Im a long time reader so it was about time anyway. Listen this is just history repeating itself. We saw it First with Napster and music. Then Kazaa came up and all of its clones. Then they attacked the few major torrent sites in existance with lawsuits. What happened everytime? Pirating evolved, its like the MPAA and other such organizations serve as nature in the darwinism that is file sharing. Every time they strike down one site or technology it just evolves and gets better. I remember the days before bittorrent and how much of a pain it could be to find a specific file, now because they have forced us to we have a much more efficiant and anonomous system to distribute illegal software. I say bring them on because I'm excited to see what new and improved ways will come forward to share files. Not to mention the fact that if they quit trying to stop it (amplifying the problem) and started trying to profit off of it they would be doing much better. Look at the advertising oppertunities....
if someone is going to hijack my thread its going to be myself you bunch of assclowns
i was going to flood them again but i got high, and i'm about to go to bed.
the non-asian revolution is slowly gaining strength.
asian porn is a backdoor to child porn.
http://ts.searching.com/torrent/486089/Starship_Ty coon
That game? I think I'll try it when I get home. If anyone plays the full version beforehand tell me how it is.
You tend to stereotype a lot of the people that use torrent sites. Sure, they may be heartless self-centered assholes, but they are downloading your game for fun. Now, did you become a software developer because you wanted money or because you enjoyed doing it?
Is your apostrophe key broken?
Anyway, my point is that people will make the right decisions and purchase what they appreciate and can afford. If your game was really great, it would make people feel bad for stealing it. I think those who selfishly steal, enjoy AND would have otherwise purchased the game are by far in the minority.
That is an apt label.
Bittorrent is a superb system that works wonders for distributing game demos and movie trailers etc. By defending its usage to steal IP, your just going to bring the whole system down.
Isn't bringing the IP system down the whole point behind this mass infringement movement?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
First Thought: That's odd, I did.
Second Thought: Oh yeah, now I remember why! Jessica Biel was in it. Duh!
Third Thought: Wait... then whats wrong with this guy? Hullo! Jessica Biel! Fap fap fap?
Fourth Thought: Ooohh, I get it. You poor whipped SOB.
Fifth Thought: Hey! I have some pictures of Jessica Biel somewhere on my storage drive!
Did you forget about elitetorrents.org? The thing that makes private sites worse it that when they do get busted the probably have some sort of log that points back to you and exactly what you have uploaded. They have to enforce the ratios some way.
Hmmm, lets see. The math says that there are several dozen solid BT sites out there, and 7 have been threatened. If they all go away today, there are only a few dozen left to choose from, and there are 20 or so added a week.
Yup, this will show those little shits, they'll have to run to #8 on thier bookmark list now. Ha, take that.
YAWN. Stupid MPAA, no cookie. You are making the same mistake the US military is, fighting the wrong war, and losing both because of it.
-Charlie
slashdot is educational.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
Ever thought that perhaps your game just isn't good enough?
/. but there was an artivle that CD sales of the top 50 went down quite a bit while the studios still made more cash because people suddenly bought way more stuff that wasn't mainstream. So good music WILL sell. So will good movies and good games. Therefore I believe that if you're not happy with how much games you sell you might want to try and make a better one next time.
I'm not saying everyone out there downloading from BT is a saint who just wants to try before they buy. That would be bullshit. But there are enough people out there who doubled or even trippled the amount of money they spent on DVDs and/or CDs and/or games just because they found games they've never even heard about before.
I don't remember whether it was on heise.de or
I know this might be moderated Flamebait, but you know what? I don't care... if people don't like my opinion, it's their problem entirely.
Ummm, you do realize sites like isoHunt don't have torrents *submitted* to them, they index .torrent files available elsewhere on the internet, much the same way Google indexes websites available elsewhere on the internet. They remove torrent links upon request, have you actually bothered emailing any of these sites to ask them to remove your torrent?
This is why I applaud apple for itunes. They realize that an easy service + selection = profit. Same with Netflix. There are some smart people out there.
MPAA/RIAA on the other hand think that Threats + DRM + higher prices + mandatory multiple purchases on single items (mp3 for home PC, mp3 clip of same song for cellphone, CD of same song for car, etc) = profits
I really wanna hear their kids at school on "bring in your parent and have them explain their job" day.
"My daddy is a suit at MPAA, he... why are you all holding guns to my daddys head?"
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
Most companies try the best to look great to their customers, to appeal to young people. Microsoft is spending billions to make itself look smaller and more open.
MPAA and RIAA are spending billions to make headlines such as "MPAA sues grandpa without computer", "RIAA sues 13-year old girl for sharing mp3", "DRM technology in audio CD-s installs without a warning and opens your PC-s to hackers", "don't use the uninstaller, it leaves your PC even MORE open to hackers", "MPAA and RIAA join together to sue Earth and be done with it".
If I could separate myself from this twisted reality we live in, where this is supposed strategy to drive up sales, I'd say they are doing everything possible to make people hate them.
Most of these sites aren't hosted in the US, or in countries that recognize torrents as being pirated material.
I'd say more, but my guild is raiding.
Reminds me of an article in a belgian newspaper recently, where our copyright organisation spoke the following words : "we know they're probably braking some law, but we don't know which yet"
If they're breaking the law, why is it taking so long to sue them? shouldn't it be obvious if someone is breaking the law? Also seeing the huge amount of money they'll probably be suing for shouldn't it be clearly said in a law what they're doing wrong, not some on the edge interpretation of some obscure law?
and probably somewhere in the future we'll probably end up with even stricter laws, making torrentsites etc... actually against the law thanks to the lobbying...
This is as much about law as a witchhunt... They either keep on looking until they find some weird interpretation of a law they can sue under, or they make sure new laws are made for what doesn't please them... How about just letting them build prisons and do the judging themselves? they'll end up being able to do whatever they want anyway, it'll just speed up the process...
"most BT traffic is illegitimate"
Not all people consider sharing of information and media to be "illegitimate". The idea that culture can be controlled and bottled up by powerful media companies is a quaint 20th century notion.
You are quite correct in questioning the effect of any ban. Bit-torrent networks and other types of filesharing are rooted in basic human behaviour and desires. That's not going to change any time soon.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
I hate to agree with you, but I agree with you. Only the threat of real violence is ever going to stop anybody. Peaceful protest doesn't work.
Look at the success of the Muslims protesting the Cartoons of the profet Mohammad. USA Newspapers and TV are scared shitless to air the offending cartoons, in fact, you have to hunt real hard to find out what the hoopla is all about.
Imagine if every lawyer working for the RIAA suddenly had to fear for his life every time he issued a supeona against a website. Imagine if every spammer thought that his family could be in danger when he sends out the 6 billion emails for Penis Enlargement.
They'd think twice about doing such things if it meant their car would have flats, their house could be burnt and their family kidnapped and beheaded.
There's an old saying that freedom must be taken. If we want to be free of these gangsters, then we need to take action, and it's very likely going to have be violent action because these days nobody understands anything else.
The terrorists have won. They have taught us that terrorism can get people to change their ways. Look how much they have changed the USA. We need to take that lesson and apply it to other areas that need change.
So, yes, while I don't want to agree with you, I admit that that only way I see real change happening is after some people die. It's not a nice thing to say; but it's an awful reality that we may have to come to accept.
And please don't send the FBI to my house, I'm not a lunatic about to commit these crimes, I'm simply pointing out that this is likely to happen sooner or later.
Thanks!
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Compulsory Licensing.
--My signature is six words long.--
The Island: Got it off PirateBay, crap.
Stealth: Got it off PirateBay, awful crap.
Transporter 2: Got it off PirateBay, utter crap.
Star Wars III: Available off PirateBay, but bought it because I wanted to.
Diablo II: Got it off PirateBay, enjoyed it so much I went out and bought a 5-year-old game.
Moral? Provide good content, more people will fork over their cash for it.
Please help boosting the development of the anonymous networks... Because that's what's going to happen if you keep on doing this.
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
And you think terrorism has done a great deal better?
Stupid %&*^#
"with an Armalite AR-10 carbine gas-powered semi-automatic weapon"
probably would happen if you could download an AR-10
I hope you are being sarcastic, but incase you arent....
The whole point of this 'mass infringement movement' is to get stuff for free. You really think that even 1% of the people that use Bittorrent for acquiring illegal content even cares about the IP system in anyway? You think the majority would understand what you are talking about if you brought the matter of civil disobediance up with them? No, its about getting something for 'free', avoiding paying the costs, keeping up with their TV shows before they are broadcast in their country.
More with your mouse over the bottom of each page in the press release: http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/2006_02_21_raze r.pdfm e=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=4
You will vind a hidden registration link.
You guys have now stolen so much, the MPAA cannot afford anymore to pay a $30 registration fee to Iteksoft. http://www.iteksoft.com/modules.php?op=modload&na
Dear MMPAA. It is time for you to sit down and chill a bit (grab a beer or something.) - you should know by now that stopping people from copying digital information is a futile effort. I know this is your job, and I know that you are working very hard on this, but it is not an effort that's going to lead to any regime where pirated movies does not exist. Just ask the guys working against music and software piracy.
So, while you sit there contemplating on the situation and what you do, you should ask yourself. Why is it that people are pirating movies? Let me give you two answers; well, the most obvious one, to save money. What can you do about this? Lower the price of theater tickts and DVDs? - Well, I don't know for anyone else, but I don't think my reason would be money.
Next one, the big one, availability, this is a major issue. You've become a lot better at distributing movies fast, atleast the movies that brings in a lot of money. But there are still people who prefer to watch their movies at home, and there are places that doesn't get the move at their theater until months after it has been shown and talked about elsewhere in the world.
Personally I think that if you provided an online service without your silly DRM, one which people could download your movies themselves and pay for it, people would. I know atleast I would. You have implemented means to stop people from doing this, like DVD zones, movies being released at different times in different parts of the world and you're releaseing the dvds a lot later than the theaters has shown the flick.
So, what I am suggesting is that you stop chasing kids downloading your materials off the net. You should still go after the profit makers, nobody likes them anyway, but above all, if you want to stop piracy, you gotta beat the pirates in terms of availability and quality of service.
You can transfer my consultant fee to my paypal account now.
By motivating nefarious evildoing individuals to devise new, more secretive ways of furtively sharing information more anonymously, the MPAA is supporting terrorism. So I say, GO GET 'EM, DUBYA!
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
...and having a total ironyectomy seems to be a prerequisite for Board memership.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
So why no link? I'll give it a try!
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
let them sue them bittorent sites.
;)
im sick of all them smiley face adverts!
while they busy with bittorent and edonkey, usenet keeps getting bigger and bigger
so i hope the MPAA keeps distracted with bittorent
I don't see a single new insight coming up from posts related to MPAA/RIAA suing bittorrent sites. All, and I mean *all* comments can either be classified as:
1. Screw MPAA/RIAA, they're bloodsuckers, they deserve it, hurrah to free music/video
2. Logical arguments about how its wrong to steal and that IP creators deserve their dues
3. Inane humour and jokes about post or other comments
So yeah, yeah...we know all of that already. Can we either just stop posting every bittorrent/MPAA development or try to come up with some new insightful comments?
I personally have never bought as much CDs as when I pirated lots, and I've never bought as much games as when there were a ton of pirate copies around me. I've stopped pirating music because nowadays it's too much hazzle (including risk), and I've mostly stopped playing games (buying maybe one a year, occasionally borrowing one off a friend) - yet the end result is that I buy significantly less, not more.
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
Which one of the current anonymous methods of p2p is the best at the moment? I know that i2p does not claim complete anonymity at the moment but at least to me it seems like the best alternative.
That is a poor analogy. There are lots of legitimate uses for weapons. Granted, "shooting bottles and small animals" might not rank up their as a terribly productive use, but they are legitimate. The vast majority of firearms in the US are owned legally and used legally. Criminal uses of firearms make up only a very small percentage of the total firearms. If you want to talk analogy, firearms are more like Google. It has some illegal uses, but the vast majority of people use it for perfectly legal uses.
As an Australian viewer of TV, I can tell this organisation right now that a really cool way of making money on these things would be ... well ... to allow us to view them legit.
Rocket science aint it ?
Until then - Channel BT has my viewing eye.
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
Ok, you know what? Next time please PLEASE use a joke only ONCE. Reading "RI/MP Ass of America" fifty times in a post gets quite fucking tiresome in the end. I dont laugh each time I read it, and I got your point first time you wrote it.
Other than that, I liked what you wrote.
USA's culture has been stolen and commercialized.
I hope you are being sarcastic, but incase you arent....
Nope, I'm serious.
You really think that even 1% of the people that use Bittorrent for acquiring illegal content even cares about the IP system in anyway?
I think most people just don't care about the IP system so they ignore it.
You think the majority would understand what you are talking about if you brought the matter of civil disobediance up with them?
Do you think the majority of people who visited speakeasies during the twenties understood about civil disobedience or did they simply want to share a drink with their friends?
No, its about getting something for 'free', avoiding paying the costs, keeping up with their TV shows before they are broadcast in their country.
Of course people want to get things at little or no cost, and it's only natural that they feel slighted when they can't have things that are available elsewhere. I'm surprised that your surprised about this.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
The problem is, how do the rest of us who want to voluntarily license our software under the GPL and our creative content under the CC license go on distributing our work for free?
By the way, distributing your work for free is not bad for business. It's a way to give out free samples with your name attatched. After awhile, people see your work and come to you offering to pay you for custom jobs. That worked for me, and I've never had to lose a minutes' sleep over the dread that somebody's using my work without paying for it.
Have to put those on my favourites list as well then...
"Slyck news reports on a new wave of lawsuits the MPAA has filed against major Bill Torrent search sites ...",
and it made me wonder who this major guy would be and is he a renegade Army officer or something when there are search sites dedicated to finding his whereabouts?
later, after infamous renegade major Bill Torrent was arrested and aprehanded to the court of law...
"May the defendant, Major William Torrent, rise. How do you plead?"
- Not guilty, Your Honour!
Oh, I am sooo out of date!
yes many times. end result is lots of abusive emails + spam.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
like using them in legitimate wars..
So the people who get prate copies of civilisation IV are doing it because the game sucks? Surely the very best cream of the crop games wont get purated then? So I'd be unlucky trying to find a torrent of half life, or Quake, or Civ right? Its just crap games like mine?
Its way easier to find games by doing a web search of browsing the games news sites. the idea that people use bittorrent to find out what new games are out because its easier than going to gamespy just makes no sense. And in that case, surely torrent sites that hosted just new free demos would be more popular than the ones hosting full free games right?
Im sick of people saying that if a game is being illegally copied that its because it sucks. if it sucks why do people want a copy? free or otherwise. Sure, there are some *good* people who will buy a game after playing a torrented full version, but thats maybe 5%. its the other 95% that are just stealing them with no intention to buy, and its that 95% that the RIAA etc are going after. I say good luck to them.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
keeping up with their TV shows before they are broadcast in their country.
This just sounds so illegitemate, you know. To think that people actually want to keep up with shows they enjoy and which is discussed all around the web without recieving spoilers 6 months in advance! Oh, the horror! They must be terrorists or something.
As for your main point... This "mass infringement movement" is (for some) about "getting stuff for free", while for others its all about protesting against the insanity that the current form of copyright law has changed into.
As much as I'd love to support my favorite artists, I refuse to feed the corporate beast that the recording industry represents. They want to take away all our freedoms, just so they can profit even more. I refuse to support that, and thus my favorite artists get to suffer. It may be sad, but that's the choices I've made in reposonse to RIAA's and MPAA's actions the last few years.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Im just about making ends meet as a software develoepr, and one of my games is available as a torrent. No doubt this isnt exactly helping sales.
You know, I could download Starship Tycoon from the torrent indexing site someone just linked to above. But...I won't. I don't even have the curiosity to try. For free. Much less pay for it. I'm probably not the only one in the same situation.
But just think...I had never heard of you or your games before. Imagine someone searching for Rollercoaster Tycoon on Torrentspy, and the search results include Starship Tycoon. That person downloads it just for the heck of it, and ends up enjoying it. Your game spreads across the Internet, by word of mouth. Torrent distribution is so darn efficient, when the product is good and popular. I'd say that's awesome publicity for a small company like yours. Even if most people end up downloading your games and not paying for the privilege of playing them, you'll still get a few tipsters once in a while. Folks who appreciate your work and will gladly pay for it, if they think you deserve it. Believe me, we're out there. I just bought the new Franz Ferdinand album, which I had in my iPod for ages, downloaded from a private tracker way before the official release date. I like it enough, I buy it.
Instead of thinking "OMG THOSE FREE RIDERS WILL STEAL MY IP", a little modesty might go a long way. Your IP, right now, doesn't even look attractive enough to "steal", judging from your website alone. I went over your games, and I honestly feel I can get better stuff for free (as in beer) in sites like pogo.com, if I'm in the mood for a quick puzzle game. Or, if I'm in the mood for some serious stretegy gaming, I'd go for a solid mainstream release. Why buy Democracy for 22.95 bucks, when I can get Civ IV for 49.95 or cheaper?
Free distribution will get you more popular and rich in the long run. Just a hunch, you don't have to take it seriously. I would, though, since your games are out there in the free download zone, legal threats are not threatening enough for the most of us, and morality is not an issue with the majority of file sharers (when I download stuff from the Net, I do it with a clean conscience and spread the joy with my friends and family afterwards!). Complaining won't get you anywhere. You might as well devise a new business model. One that suits the small game developer that you are.
you dont understand, the majority of slashdot kiddies think that people who actually create content are *evil* and its everyones human right to take the efforts of those people and enjoy them for free. Its called "sticking it to the man!" Until the same kiddies become musicians or developers with bills to pay. Then they start feeling like right hypocrites.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Look at the success of the Muslims protesting the Cartoons of the profet Mohammad. USA Newspapers and TV are scared shitless to air the offending cartoons, in fact, you have to hunt real hard to find out what the hoopla is all about.
Look in Europe. The drawings has been reprinted in different newspapers several times in several countries, and they are shown on many websites, including newspapers websites.
Europe is not very scared. We're just sad that we can't understand each other, and we're trying to find a solution without sacrificing our freedom. We are not giving up our freedom to draw stuff.
USA may be scared. We'd rather take the risk and keep our way of life.
2. Logical arguments about how its wrong to steal
Yet another poster that cannot understand the difference between stealing and copyright infringement. Or are you doing it deliberately in order to provoke a response? If so, well done, you succeeded.
Let's get it right people, please! Is it so hard to stick to the facts? Please use the correct words, and not the loaded terms that MPAA / RIAA use in their propaganda. Then we can have a rational discussion about it.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Lets just say in a perfect world, everyone stopped downloading. Do you think all the taxes and extra fees on blank media / or iPods (Canada) etc got added due to piracy would get lifted? I highly doubt it. They are getting some love / reimbursment .. I dont feel guilty at all for the stuff I download.
The terrorists have won. They have taught us that terrorism can get people to change their ways. Look how much they have changed the USA. We need to take that lesson and apply it to other areas that need change.
I call BS.
a) contrary to what many of its citizens seem to think, the US of A is not the center of the world, and its significance as a beacon of light and hope declines by the day.
b) just as some leaders of the muslim world have utilized the by now famous cartoons as a means to an end, the US government has done the same using terrorists. all you need as a government is a nice target to point at and designate as the "bad guys" and all the sheep will happily bleat in the name of security and safety...
The US would have changed anyway. Decadence has eroded the ideals the country was founded on. Attributing these changes to terrorists is giving them far more credit than they deserve. The most powerful country with the biggest, best equipped army, and yet running around scared...too much arrogance, not enough pride, i suppose.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
From the article:
BitTorrent: ISOHunt, TorrentSpy, NiteShadow.com, BTHub.com and TorrentBox.com;
eDonkey2000: Ed2k-It.com;
Newsgroups: NZB-Zone.com, BinNews.com and DVDRs.net.
The legaltiy would depend on the opinion of a judge, who will be influnced by the big bucks of the industry. Are you willing to take the chance and lose your entire income trying to fight what is 'right', even if you win?
I bet no.
And i dont agree you can have a legal search engine for prostitution ( where prostitution is not allowed that is ). We just had one guy closed up for doing just that in this area. They took his site away too. Something about 'intent'.. You know, 'intent to commit a crime?' . Just beacuse its on the net doesnt mean that factor is tossed to the wind.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
not real practical in this day and age where money controls the government.
Unless you have most of the country behind you, with people willing to die for their beliefs, and are organized and trained you dont have a chance in hell. More jails can be built to house you and your 'people'.
I sort of doubt anyone is willing to die over not being able to download a movie....
---- Booth was a patriot ----
How does one tell a "legitimate" BitTorrent tracker from an "illegitimate" tracker? Does someone go through the tracker and calculate the ratio of copyrighted material to free/copylefted material?
Since a BT tracker is simply a search engine, are you suggesting that the engine should inspect all of its indexed torrents and filter out the ones that are copyrighted? What about material that's copyrighted but has been posted to the tracker by the copyright owner?
If I were so inclined I could use Google to find illegal materials and services - as mentioned by other posters, but the **AA is not suing Google (yet) probably because they're too big and expensive to sue. (After all, Google is refusing to turn over search records to the government even when handed a subpoena.)
I would argue that a BitTorrent tracker is not an inherently illegal device and that there's no easy way to measure the amount of "illegal" traffic on it. All one can do (if one is the copyright holder) is to request the tracker remove links to infringing material when it's discovered, and that these trackers have been complying with those requests.
Shutting these trackers down will do two things:
1. Annoy a lot of people and generate more animousity towards the **AA
2. Shift the traffic to a number of lesser-known trackers who then become the next TorrentBox and such
Let's face it, the RIAA and MPAA are just playing Whack-a-Mole here and are starting to get frustrated each time the mole pops back up.
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
The MPAA only listen to the will of their own millions (their millions of dollars, that is).
You should have at least mentioned the name of the game and maybe a link to a review of it.
Is there any online options for it, multiplayer.
If so tell us about them.
You know you could benefit from your game being on bit torrent. If you have to use a server you control to use it's multiplayer modes. Then restricting access to people with legal copies, If people want to play then they will pay simple as that.
You know you could provide a replacement key service at a price that covers the cost of a lost sale to you and your publisher to replace lost keys. Or to allow an expansion pack to be downloaded and used.
right now you have something very valuble publicity.
This is going to do one of two things drive up sales or drive them through the floor. It all depends on the quality of the game.
I mean you could build a relationship with the gamers talk to them get feed back
Any bugs in your game? can you fix them make the game better make a patch, fix the legit copies.
Right now you have got the exposure you could never get any other way. It's time to capitalise on that.
did you realise most torrent sites also have comments on individual torrents link to your website. word of mouth is good for you.
People try to avoid buying crap these days and things like bittorrent give them the opportunity. Everything gets hyped by the marketing companies good and bad people want the good and want to miss out on the bad.
Bit torrent gives choice.
here's a nice example try this site
http://www.the-hotels.org.uk/music.htm
I think they are pretty good.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
you have to hunt real hard to find out what the hoopla is all about.
No, you have to type "Mohammed" into Google, and it's on the first page. Better yet, type "Mohammed caricatures" and you get several pages of links. That's not "hunting real hard", that's something even a school kid could do.
Quality, performance, value; you get only two, and you don't always get to pick.
"My daddy is a suit at MPAA, he... why are you all holding guns to my daddys head?"
ROFL
Remember, not that long ago, when the RIAA/MPAA were suing the distribution networks instead of the individual users? Seeing that for every network they struck down, ten new/better ones appeared, they decided to change their strategy and sue the people who downloaded the copyrighted material. While trying to get everyone out there was probably a futile task, RIAA/MPAA's strategy was to publisize the (often ridiculous) lawsuits with the goal of scaring everyone else and thus reducing P2P usage.
:-)
Seems like this new strategy didn't work and now they're back at square one, suing the networks again.
I believe the end is near (and it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside
I understand you're frustration. But you must realize that most of the people who download things for free couldn't afford to buy it in the first place. Does that give them the right to do it? NO. But think of it as free advertizing/viral marketing.
I would say that heavy downloaders are most likely the trend setters within their circle of friends. They get the product first and rave about how good it is. Their friends will end up buying it because they aren't tech savvy enough to find it online or don't have the time. The MP/RI-AA's would have you believe that everyone and their grandma is downloading stuff, but that just isn't the case. The vast majority of people purchase things because it is just easier.
I'd have to agree with that. I can't be bothered to go download your game for free. Even if it runs on linux. I'm afraid if you want me to be your customer, you'll need to pay me for it.
The Pirate Bay is not hosted in the good ol' U.S. of A... Sweden hasn't yet become a bendover to corporations society just yet... wait ten years or so, and they might have caught up.
They just don't get it.
Unique.
So add a donate tag/link after the splash screen. Improves the odds that illicit copy might get ya a few bucks... maybe not the full price but something is better than nothing.
Be pro-active, create a crippled version and sumbit that one to the torrent sites. Maybe include a coupon code within the game to tempt players to do the right thing and purchase a legit copy.
Pirating is always going to happen. Learn to deal with it; either use it to your advantage(e.g. free marketing) and/or make use of the Cease&Desist letter. From the article it sounds like the sites honor those.
And while you're at... why all the javascript redirects on your site? For example the Forums links is just a javascript redirect to newforum. Makes your site very difficult to navigate for those of us who default to "no javascript" ala the noscript plugin. A difficult to use website is a real turn-off for potential customers.
Some people can't fathom existence without the illusion of being downtrodden. The US was born of immigrants, but for some, giving up and bending over has been in their blood for generations.
I'm an upcoming movie producer and you are mentioning sites in your lawsuit and news texts that contain references to ways to download copyrighted material!
This will clearly reduce my future income by several million dollars! That's right, millions!
(My first movie will be a mega hollywood blockbuster whith an extremly small budget so the profits would have been HUGE)
You just wait 'til I get hold of a lawyer. I've got a open and shut case here...
Is copying really stealing? They both have different meanings in the dictionary.
Where is the fairness in IP, copyrights, patents, trademarks etc?
Its all about money, and the rich getting richer, it always has been.
We all use technology which has been copied from others somewhere along the line (think about our language for an example, its only in todays age that you can own the rights to a word).
Monkey see, monkey do.
May the best man win.
Look, instead of bemoning the "big, bad RIAA" (or the like),
why don't we - in any & all media - just start creating our
own IP & fill the bt mesh with LEGITIMATELY sharable content?
Go write books, record music - both in listenable/viewable
form and onto virtual sheetmusic - make movies, etc.
Then, the stuff RIAA & Co. can find on the mesh is minimal
& we could show how useful a tool bt is for sharing stuff
we have created.
Oh, and if - by some chance - some or most of us CAN'T
create new stuff, then maybe it's a sign that "consuming"
other's creations may not be enough... And we'll learn
from that revelation... and try something else...
my 2 cents
Avast ye!
The good pirate knows the legal status of his port, arr.
Best be keeping ye out of the United Nasties for now then.
"Disabling these powerful networks of illegal file distribution is a significant step in stemming the tide of piracy on the Internet."' ...for at least two more weeks, that is.
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
really. Well nothing more to say, but this suddenly came to my mind when reading his quote.
Yes piracy can mean wooden legs, parrots etc. but it also has a meaning to do with the appropriation of others' work:
= piracy
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define
purely because it makes it easier to change forum software. i experimented with free forums once (forumer.com) BIG mistake...
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Lets see... There are (according to most estimates) roughly 10 million people on p2p networks at any given time, and then there is the MPAA & RIAA & the bought and paid for government officials. hmmm, do you think the latter has ever heard of Gen. Custer? Do they *really* think they can stop p2p?
Was that a cut-paste job? This article isn't about the RIAA, or music piracy. So, about half of those don't apply at all.
You should really reword that, so it reads ??AA and makes even broader sweeping generalisations about what people "actually mean". Sure to be popular.
That's ridiculous - if people start to die, then more people who are in the grey area between choices will "realize" that all pirates are evil and support the "good" RIAA. Violence is only a necessary and viable option against those who use violence - in all other Western-world cases, it turns public opinion against you.
The situation seems to be just like a cold war between file sharers and RI/MPAA. Luckily the file sharers seem to be winning by evolution of technology. Maybe I should go make a donation to the Bittorrent site.
Thats fine, I can see that you dont like my games enough to buy them, I am fine with that. I dont deserve to get a sale from someone who isn't imrpessed with the product. Different tastes for different people, thats no problem at all. I make free demos available happily, I want people to be happy with the game. Its had at least 16 patches and updates in the 8 months since release.
;(
I think we can both agree that the REAL problem is people with this attitude:
"I like this game its cool, I want to play it for ages. Wheres the torrent?"
here we have a problem, because the game has ticked all the required boxes, but its STILL doesnt get the sale, which has to be bad news for the developer.
People are getting the wrong end of the stick here. I am not on slashdot whining that people should buy my games. Ive madde some crap games that dont sell, and some good ones that do. I've refined my games, kept up feedback with the players over time, and responded to what people want. I'm making a small living doing this, so I must be making some good stuff. What I'm getting emotional and whining about is the people who DO like the games enough, but still pirate them.
Your comparison with Civ4 is a good example. I played the demo, but it just wasn't for me. I probably still have the demo installed. one day I might buy it, who knows. But I wouldn't get a torrent of it. If I liked it enough to play more than the demo, I'd buy it, just as you probably have done. But I think we BOTH agree, that in this case its wrong for you to get Civ4 as a free torrent yes?
The RIAA are bastards, no argument there, but they are the only ones trying to stop blatant piracy. It pains me to side with the same people who put rootkits on peoples PCs, but right now, nobody else is sticking up for the producers of IP at any level
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
I refuse to feed the corporate beast that the recording industry represents.
You forgot this part:
"just as long as I am still able to get everything that this beast is feeding up."
If you want it - pay, if not - don't. The "I don't think it's worth the money so I don't pay" stance is pathetic. The legit users of torrent sites are overshadowed by the illegitimate ones. Is it the fault of the tracker sites? No, its the ripper and the encoder. The population at large can't tell the difference.
I also the "try before buy" stance. If you can get a really awesome full featured demo of a dev suite or get a lower res version of a movie to see if its any good before you buy a legit copy - cool. That's generally considered being a smart consumer. But, if you use torrent sites to get free copies of things you can't afford because you want them - well now you're just pawning off your weak economic status onto those who labored to create the item you so covet.
with a retractable baton!
Gotta love the Prirate Bay. I think that should become the industry standard response.
Peaceful protest doesn't work.
Oh that's right, the British left after the Indians deployed their elite tank and fighter jet forces...
The problem with violence is that it's not democratic. Even if it's coming from the underdog, it's still one party imposing its way on another.
What the US needs isn't more violence (you've got enough) but some serious political reform.
Here is one for you - I'm a sanctimonious twit - and I didn't read the article.
I think the fundamental problem here (and one which you kind of gloss over) is one of economics. I can legally purchase CD's, or DVD's, or buy them from a website via an approved device/website combination.
This costs me money (~10$ for 10 songs - or 1$ per song). The economics of this is justified using the following arguments from the RIAA:
- We promote the material (advertising, radio kickbacks, etc).
- We distribute the media (we arranged for the CD/DVD to be pressed - or provided a high quality electronic copy)
- We collect the revenue from the sale and distribute it to the artist.
- We sue to protect the rights of the artist.
Now consider - the paradigm shift - bittorrent and file sharing promotes the material, bittorrent and file sharing distributes the media, the gap is in the revenue collection. Couldn't revenue be collected in other ways? I pay a tax on blank media (including harddrives) in Canada that goes to the artist. I also pay to go to concerts (for artists I enjoy), and I pay for their branded merchandise (40$ for a baseball cap with a bands slogan on it?). I'm certain the business practice could shift to accomedate the new technology - the RIAA needs to realize this is an opportunity - not a hinderance.
We saw something similiar with newspapers and the internet. Suddenly Advertising dollars for news print were going to online sites. Newspapers succeeded by offering online versions of their paper at a reduced cost - with value added features.
What would happen to the music industry if the RIAA did the following:
1) Offered a bittorrent site with high quality audio with a reasonable subscription price (say 10$-20$ per month)
2) Included advertisements on the proposed bittorrent site.
3) Offered tickets (perhaps at a reduced price) for bands you had downloaded?
4) Offered to sell merchandise (hats/CD's/DVD's,etc)
5) Offered blogs with comments from the artists and their fans
6) Cross sold/up sold fans on similiar bands.
Sooner or later they are in for trouble if they continue down this path. The reality is they don't control every market in the world - and a bittorrent site in Eastern Russia is just as relevant as a bittorrent site in North America.
oink oink
Dude. I believe I speak for a large number of people here and there and everywhere: don't mention that place on a public forum. Just...don't. It's too good a thing to ruin. Mum's the word, yes? Thank you.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. -- G.B. Shaw
Fortunately, the Cartoon Network is educating the next generation about the evils of piracy - One Piece.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Won't somebody think of Manny Perry! http://www.nytimes.com/videosrc/movies/20031116_MP AA2_LO.ram
Because it seems curious that the MPAA et al are persuing search engines - if, hypothetically speaking, they are successful, that means Google and related sites will get major headaches due to copyright, then M$ and their ilk can move in.
Wow, what a blind, snobbish vision you have! It's really refreshing to see that people not in the US feel they are just as superior to us as we feel we are of them. There is a lot of talk out of Europe, especially, about the lack of a US "culture". The problem is, many of those people mistakehistory, rituals, and traditions with Culture. The fact is, the United States has just as much "culture" as any other country in the world, it's just a different culture. It's all a matter of perspective. The US is unique in that 1. It's the world's largest superpower (although China is making inroads), 2. It's huge geographically, and 3. It's a very young country. We have resources, high standards of living, and askew a lot of the traditions and rituals of Europe. Because of that, I think a lot of Europeans resent us. And maybe are even... dare I say it... jealous? That resentment is clear in this poster's rant. Personally, I'll take the US's "lack of culture" over any other country's "culture" any day. I live a great life in the US, as do many more!
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
Since you happen to think the worst about everyone, even when I make it clear that, yes there are 100% freeloaders, but point out that there are other kind of users... I'll offer a reply.
The music I'm interested in ain't sold around here. If I want it, I must download it using various P2P systems, and if I like it, then I can order it online. As I said, try before you buy. And since I already said I didn't support the RIAA and MPAA, let me just clarify in advance: This ain't european nor american music.
As for movies? Same deal. As for TV-shows. If they are even aired here, expect a 6 month delay minimum. And that's a big "if". Battlestar Galactica? Still not aired. You can always say "Buy the DVDs if you want it", but I'm not paying over 100USD for a show I haven't seen yet, nor am I willing to wait 2 years after it was aired.
You may disagree on weather I'm entitled to this content in the first place, but as my moral standings on this goes, none of the uses mentioned above is "illegitemate" or "wrong" in any way.
If you find all this unreasonable, just bear in mind that there's this thing called "free market" and "supply and demand". If there ain't no legitemate way to get something a lot of people want, there will be illegal suppliers instead. It's one of the oldest laws of mankind. Trying to avoid that is as futile as futile gets.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
"You have just proven his point - you have no culture, and apparently no idea how to debate."
(The "you" in "you have no culture" may have been either singular or plural, but I'll assume the former. My points would apply in either case.)
There are two related meanings of "culture" at play here: [1] A group's language, religion, art, and customs and [2] familiarity with and sensitivity to the fine points of the culture[1] of your own and other societies.
Saying someone "has no culture" is either a vacuous slap at the entire society in which the person lives ("you have no culture[1]"), or it's a statement that the person lacks culture[2]. The GP was asking about culture[1], not culture[2].
So that means that you, writer of parent, have taken the word "culture" out of its culture[1] context and hurled it as an insult, "no culture[2]". Nothing in GP suggests a lack of civility or learning -- just the opposite, in fact, as he displayed some knowledge of another group's activities. You used that accusation as a springboard to claim he lacked debating technique.
He, at least, dealt with the content of the message to which he was responding. You merely insulted him, while ironically posturing as a debater.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
This is IH from isoHunt.com. We also run TorrentBox.com. Some clarifications for comments here:
* Yes, this is MPAA's FUD. The lawsuit included.
* No, BitTorrent and P2P are not illegal (yet). They are not solely tools of thieves as the MPAA like to portray them as. There are many legal torrents in isoHunt's search index.
* No, I haven't got anything from MPAA about this lawsuit of theirs, but the press release is real and we are working with other sites, sued or yet to be sued, and the EFF on this.
* This is significant as they are suing search engines. isoHunt.com is a search engine. It does not discriminate, it index by algorithm. If we can, we'll be pulling in Google and Yahoo to say a few words that search engines are not illegal (yet).
* No, I'm not a crook. I see P2P as the new VCR, and I intend on proving that P2P can be used to the benefit of content creators, as a cheap and global vehicle for distribution and promotion.
Read more and comment on my forum announcement if you like:
http://isohunt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38933
VIVA1023.com | Political Fashion.
Except that these ways are no longer existing, because the servers were seized and sit mothballed in an FBI evidence warehouse. And the operators are now being anally abused in a Gitmo torture chamber. The US Army does remember how many great miliatristic and patriotistic movies Hollywood made for them.
Maybe I wasn't clear in my statements. I have read your posts and you do acknowledge the freeloaders. I also don't condemn using downloads as a method of "trying before flying."
I understand the freemarket scenario, as I'm a big fan. I also think if you are using this method of getting the content you want because it is the only conduit available to you then you have no other options and are well within a morally acceptable boundry. I don't think this even touches on entitlement, because you don't display that attitude. For you this isn't a "free media for me because I'm entitled" scenario, its a "I have no other option" scenario.
I do not usually think the worst of everyone, but I do take some pretty hardline stances. I replied to your post as a matter of respect, because your statements had well thought out reasoning behind them - but did also happen to be remarkable similar to those who feel they have a right to everything without a cost. It was not clear that my post was not directly aimed at you, but was mocking the general attitude those who feel entitled to free everything.
I don't discuss these matters with the "OMG! EvErY thing should be FR33! Britany Spears suxxorz, but I want her single anywayz!" crowd. I prefer to debate those with a more solid understanding of the matter, with an alternate opinion.
While I may think that technically what you are doing in downloading the music may be illegal (depending on copyrights of the creator and country of origin, blah, blah, blah...), I am not one to think that law = morality. Denying yourself media you desire, that you would happily obtain through more legal channels if it was available, in order to stay compliant with some rules written in a book somewhere is not always reasonable in extreme circumstances.
"Website operators who abuse technology to facilitate infringements of copyrighted works by millions of people are not anonymous - they can and will be stopped," said John G. Malcolm, Executive Vice President and Director of Worldwide Anti-Piracy Operations for the MPAA how about: "Corporate Executives who abuse technology to facilitate infringements of millions of peoples' rights and freedoms are not anonymous - they can and will be stopped"
I think many people are going to be shocked when the MPAA WINS these cases. Primarily they will argue that 1)Yes..it's a search service but 2) It's obvious to anybody looking at these sites and the site operaters that the majority of torrent file names are to copyrighted material
On the other side I'd argue all sorts of things like how would you know what files exactly are being traded since torrent names don't have to match the file names, and how do you know what that torrent file is without downloading it first.
In the end it really depends on which judge they get. If they can convince the judge that it's reasonable to assume that a torrent name with references to copyrighted material is in fact probably copyrighted material, well then they are screwed.
Am I searching on a different google? I certainly don't see them.
>That's the explanation why USA has such high crime rate. That's explains why you Americans at large has no understanding what's going outside: since you have no culture (but show business) one can hardly expect you to understand way others are living.
When I read your post about the significance of 'SOCIETY' and 'CULTURE,' I was cheering. Yes!! My thoughts exactly!
I am an American.
You're right that many Americans have very little idea what's going on outside the 'States. Many, of course, simply don't care -- but ignorance, innocent or otherwise, is hardly unique to this side of the Atlantic (or Pacific). I used to think much like you seem to: That Americans are fat, stupid, and aggressive, and that I needed to get somewhere else where the grass is greener. But experience has changed the way I think. People from elsewhere are no better. Different, yes -- and perhaps the flaws take different forms -- but certainly no more elevated or enlightened. Please be careful when you perpetuate stereotypes.
That said, I still agree with your point, and I share your fears: As thought and art turn into 'intellectual property,' we lose culture and edge with greedy baby-steps towards anarcho-capitalist dystopia. It's what cyberpunk warns us about; it's the businessman's and the libertarian's fantasy. And at this rate, it's going to happen. I can already feel Adam Smith's invisible hand winding up to smack us.
...to shoot off, at this point.
Sure, there are lots of people out there who download video and music and never intend to pay for them in any way, shape or form. The thing is, even if P2P/filesharing/etc. didn't exist, these people wouldn't be paying for this media. However, there are a lot of people like myself who use filesharing as a way to preview media to see if they like it before they buy it. Case in point:
I live in Canada, and we don't get a lot of the shows from other countries here, even if you pay for digital cable or satellite. At one point, I read a review online about a show called Dead Like Me that I thought had an interesting premise. Unfortunately, it wasn't playing at all in Canada, so I dowloaded the first season and watched it. I loved the show! When it finally was released in Canada two years later, I bought Season 1 and Season 2 on DVD -- Season 2 sight unseen. However, there is no way in hell that I was going to spend $50 per box set on a series that I wasn't even sure if I was going to like. This goes double for movies/TV shows that I'd have to order special and pay an arm or a leg for (especially European imports, as they have to be converted). I'd like to know what I'm buying first, especially when, as with opened DVDs, you can't take them back!
So yes, MPAA, shove tonnes of money at lawsuits against P2P/BitTorrent/etc. Maybe you'll even close some of the services down. However, you'll lose money on the legal fees, you'll lose money when people can't preview the video that they want to see, and you'll definitely lose consumer backing. Way to go.
So who wants to start something new up ?
One of my problems with the MPAA and the other groups that make these up, is that my Daughter, loves "Dora the Explorer". It is and will be for the forseeable future illegal for her to write a "Dora the Explorer" book, short story, movie, cartoon, website EVER IN HER LIFETIME.
Not defending drug companies, but even drug companies lose the "exclusive" on a drug they spent Billions developing for after what 7 years? WTF is Dora, Micky Mouse, and all the rest virtually guaranteed forever?
What would the world look like if everything had a perpetual license? We would be paying Newton's great great great.... Grand children $2 a day to sit down, or $4 a day if you wanted to become horizontal for any reason. Imagine the payments on "your final resting place".
Sit... Speak.... Shake.... Good Dog!
What's next? Suing Google because you can find kiddie pron with it? Lets sue the Government, because they certainly started this whole crazy Internet thing.
I think these lawsuits are ridiculous and need to be stopped. Our society is hurt by them. If they can't stop people like http://thepiratebay.org/, then this is pointless. The Internet is not just in the United States jurisdiction, it is all over the world.
If a large part of society changes, you will see rift from the other parts of society. When cars were first driving our roads, you had to pull to the side and shut your car off if you came up to a horse. That was the law here in New Hampshire. Society is and has greatly changed because of computers and the Internet. It seems to me that these technologies are not going anywhere, and although change is difficult, we need to embrace it because fighting it will only produce short term gratification. Long term damage? Hopefully, if it involves the RIAA.
This makes as much sense as the US passing laws against spam, when spam comes from everywhere.
DISCLAIMER:
I don't believe what I write, and neither should you.
No, he didn't try to say that he has culture. He was trying to say that his country's culture is valuable, and as evidence of that said that other people wanted a taste of it.
You made the same mistake again.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
...so happy to see that my favourite invite-only torrent site(s) are NOT on that list.
Isn't that Rabbit game yours? Didn't you work on Unreal and Unreal Tourney? If so, I'd hardly say you're "scraping by."
And if so, I had this same discussion with your boss five years ago on Planet Crap. Warren is afraid of piracy, he said, because he stole all his software when he was in college.
Strange how dishonest people think everyone is dishonest like them. But you and Warren are both wrong - most people are honest. Most people will buy a good game, movie, or song they've "pirated," and I think you all know it.
What you're afraid of is someone will see a crap movie on BitTorrent and not bother to see it in the theater. If you write crap, I can understand why you hate BitTorrent.
In fact, I'd say any so-called "artist" who is afraid that nobody would buy their work if they could get it for free is most likely aware that he or she is producing crap.
That said, I'll tell you why the MP/RIAA is afraid of BitTorrent: Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning. When amateurs are doing a better job than the pros, the pros SHOULD start sweating.
-mcgrew
(Partial MRC="sentry")
Record companies do more than what you listed, they also hire staff, have contacts with studios (and sometimes own them), promote CDs on TV and radio, get them in record stores etc.
As for you paying for concerts and merchandise, well, the artist would only really sign for a record label and issue CDs if they were looking to make money from those CDs, as well as from concerts etc. Go to concerts, buy merchandise, yeah, but unless you have the express permission of the band to download their album it's not really cricket to think you're entitled to it in some way.
1) Offered a bittorrent site with high quality audio with a reasonable subscription price (say 10$-20$ per month)
2) Included advertisements on the proposed bittorrent site.
They sound like good ideas, and 3-6 are almost there already. To be clear, it's not BitTorrent or Internet distribution I'm against, and I'm nowhere near an RIAA lover (copy protected CDs in particular piss me off) but I just think artists deserve to be rewarded for their work, and the people that claim their downloading is motivated by some kind of political cause rather than getting shit for free are being more than a little bit disingenuous.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
5 million WoW users worldwide use BT to get their patches. That right there is a decent enough "legit" reason why one can't blame BT itself for copyright infringement.
I realize that the MPAA has to go after these BT sites just to make a showing, but it really is just a waste. They'll shut down these 5 (or whatever) and 10 more will pop up to take their place.
It's really not going to affect me one way or another, since I don't want to get sued myself and therefore do not download files that would put me at risk.
Unless "The IT Crowd" is protected. That show is GOLD JERRY GOLD and is freely available on many of the BT networks.
swanker than you
"So add a donate tag/link after the splash screen. Improves the odds that illicit copy might get ya a few bucks... maybe not the full price but something is better than nothing.
Be pro-active, create a crippled version and sumbit that one to the torrent sites. Maybe include a coupon code within the game to tempt players to do the right thing and purchase a legit copy."
There are some excellent recommendations here: I think this is a great idea. Make it easy for me to donate some money towards the developers if I think the game was good enough for a few hours, but not good enough to warrant a full purchase.
Yeah, because then they start spamming you out of SPITE!
PLONK
WAA WAA
Honestly you need to fight fire with fire. How many of your games demos have you seeded into torrents and then listed them on the torrent search sites? you should have flooded the likes of piratebay and the others with your demos and special offers for X% off to get more exposure out there.
You can not get suckered into doing things the same old way. You have to evolve daily to how the market is evolving. If your game is so popular as to being pirated first you need to grin first knowing that it made it popular and then release either a newer version with better or improved gameplay or expansion packs that will draw in those that did get it without buying it.
Also asking very politely for sites to remove a torrent from their site that points to your software also is usually done.
In other words, what you see large software companies doing? you need to do the opposite.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
You show me one movie, book, song, software that WASN'T made for fear of piracy then we can talk about it.
:)
To be fair, that's much like trying to prove a negative. Possible, but tricky. And in this case, trivially easy:
I was going to release an album full of my own music, but decided not to because of piracy.
Go ahead, prove me wrong
I think what we need to see is a CREATOR who's stood up and said "ok, fuck this, I'm stopping writing books/music/films because of piracy". Which, of course, we haven't, because piracy rarely hurts creators; instead, it hurts distributors.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
huh? what are you talking about? I'm a pig.
really 867993
Karma schkarma
Add Google to the list.
It is like the "You shall not make pictures in God's image" in the bible - why should I, as an atheist, follow that? (Excepting the fact that there may be religious fanatics that come running after me.)
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
Lets see, at 8.5GB per double-layer DVD that means you bought 23.529 DVDs this year (unless some of them were single-layer). ;-)
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
MPAA: I'll give you $50 or so a month for unlimited access to streamed movies and TV shows. HD would be a plus. I don't even want to keep it. Why not put just a tiny bit of effort into profiting from the idea of downloaded content rather than fighting it every step of the way? Worked for Apple.
I don't want to own movies or tv shows; there isn't a need if they are *available* all the time (yes i'll pay - stop asking!). I have around 100 DVDs, of those I maybe brush the dust off 1 a month and watch it (Netflix for everything else). With a fee-based always-on model ('streaming Netflix' or some such thing), there would be no need to buy DVDs, or illegally download anything - plus the **AA would get their $$ which I think is what all the crying is about anyway.
No. It makes ABSOLUTELY ZERO DIFFERENCE to them. The ONLY case where it makes a difference is if the person would otherwise purchase a copy of some of the content copied, and does not purchase said contents because she copied it. This is the ONLY case that matters.
I'm spending my weekend to do my part to bring down the movie studios: I'm making an independent movie.
Eivind (who actually mostly makes movies for fun, yet if it can hurt MPAA, that's an added bonus.)
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
Are you in China?
Seriously, look at the first link on the first search page for Mohammed where Google says "See results for: Mohammed cartoon
The first result is a wikipedia article. If you can't find that, you need to turn in your internet license.
The television will not be revolutionized.
Artists (real artists) make art for art, not for money.
Marketers, on the other hand, convince you that you should spend money on their particular product: In this case, their specific music.
Many people make the mistake of confusing stuff they've heard of with stuff that was made.
Art will be made whether or not it gets sold. Art will be made whether or not someone figures out how to monetize it. Art will be made because creativity is a human trait.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
This is disheartening... very slowly, read this. This is a quote from the post I originally replied to.
Why does the rest of the world spend so much of their euros/yen/RMB/won/pesos/etc on American culture if it doesn't exist?
Now, just to make sure you caught that... I'll print it again: if it doesn't exist.
Not "if it's worthless". He said "if it doesn't exist".
No one said American culture was worthless - someone said it didn't exist.
And due to the specific words he used, he implied that culture could be measured monetarily. It's "culture" not "blockbuster films".
Furthermore, your (correct) definition of "culture" helped to prove my point and proved he had no culture. I didn't define what culture was - you did. If you're going to be mad at someone for saying he has no culture, you'll have to be mad at yourself. I worked withing the framework you provided.
"You made the same mistake again" - of not being able to read (his post, my posts, your own posts).
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
AAARRGGGHHH!!
Apparently, no one understands that I was making fun of him. What he posted was stupid, so I ridiculed him for it.
He said "Why does the rest of the world spend so much of their [money] on American culture if it doesn't exist?". He doesn't understand what culture is (see the other replies for somebody trying to argue with me and proving me right).
He tried to link economy to culture - which is stupid.
He's talking about popular media - but that's not "culture", which is what the post he replied to was about.
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
All the power of **AAs is because of the bribes they provide to different legislators.
And the nice sounding "we protect authors profits".
Ok, what will happen if we "bribe" the authors, thus protecting their profits? Are they going to sign again with the studious?
My proposal is: on every torrent site, for every torrent there to be a PayPal (or any other) link for direct donation to the authors. If most of the downloaders donate even 1$, and it is obvious that it is because of the torrent site, I guess a lot of authors will change their minds about P2P, and the way they distribute their works.
Weekly I download an anime series bleach. Lunar a fan-sub uses torrents as a distribution method. They only distribute legitimate files. Many orginizations use it as a distribution methond. I guess it comes down to if you hold objects or people accountable. The close parallel is gun rights. I don't own a gun but feel people should be able to have them. If a person kills another with a gun I blame the person not the gun. For me it is the same with torrents.
Im just about making ends meet as a software develoepr, and one of my games is available as a torrent. No doubt this isnt exactly helping sales. So I suppose that the torrent sites you support check the financial data of each submitted torrent, will spot that I'm a solo developer who needs the cash, and decline to list torrents of my stuff right?
And piracy didn't exist before torrents?
And you are complaining that your software is so popular that there is a torrent?
I hate to say it (no that's not true), but piracy does a good thing... you have people more than willing to spread the name of your product through word of mouth for free. Look at the American Anime market... for ever we were stuck in an endless circle of:
Japan: We don't see a market in America
American Otaku: How would you know unless your product visits america
And through the Anime pirates, though blatent piracy... a market was created.
But as a copyright holder it's your right to put your foot down and choose how to distribute your product... and it's your right to shoot your self in the foot if that is your wish.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
So we can (hopefully) agree that there is no loss to the studio when I borrow a DVD from a friend. Now have you ever either borrowed something from someone who had borrowed it from someone else? (or been anyone in that equation) ? And I think that we can again agree that the original 'producer' of the borrowed-item still suffered no loss?
So obviously the degree of borrowing/lending doesn't cause loss to the 'victim'*? In other words, if the 2nd borrower again lends it to a fourth party, is the original producer harmed? The n-th lender/borrower combination in no way affects your 'victim'.
So now explain how the studio is hurt when I borrow a movie from someone I've never met? This is merely a direct n-th level lender/borrower combination...
*no, the studio is the 'victim', not my friend.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
Many rants about how "Search engines aren't illegal", etc. Blah blah blah blah blah.
The point that I think is being made here is that search engines that end up being used virtually exclusively for the finding of materials that are illegal _OUGHT_ to be illegal, and that's why the MPAA is working at shutting them down.
You do not, for example, need to use one of the mentioned torrent search sites to find the latest Linux ISO images. I feel fairly confident in saying that the actual number of legal torrent files out there that could be not be found without using a search engine that predominantly indexes to illegal content (that is, copyrighted content which is being shared without the copyright holder's permission) is staggeringly tiny (although I similarly somehow would not doubt that some slashdot readers will take it upon themselves to cite a few examples in response to my remarks that will somehow "prove" this assertion to be incorrect).
So by the reasoning being proposed by the MPAA here, taken to its natural conclusion, if or when Google indexes substantially more infringing content than it does legitimate, and if and when that is predominantly what the engine is used for, then even Google would be shut down.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Typing a big word, like "Mohammed", into Google is the current society's definition of 'hunt real hard'.
Find coupons in Greeley
You can go to google and type in a name of any game and the word torrent to get a link to the torrent file. So why isn't the MPAA going after google? Oh wait, google probably has more money than they do and would fight back and win instead of rolling over and playing dead.
Then they closed down the P2P centralized servers.
Next they went after the distributed P2P systems and scared them off.
They started suing random P2P users with large share directories, often missing the mark.
Then they went after sites that stored only torrent files, and no actual content.
Now they're after the sites that index the torrents, and have neither actual content, nor torrent files.
Your own personal computer is next on their hit list of infringing devices.
Is anyone aware of just how small these content industries really are compared to the overall economy? They are the tail wagging the dog!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
MPAA/RIAA sues little guys...more people stop buying CD's....sales go down...MPAA/RIAA think, "Wow! Our sales are down! There must be more pirating than we thought! Crank up the lawsuit machine!"...more people get sued...less people buy CD's...sales go down...more lawsuits come....more people are sued....less people buy CD's...sales go down...more lawsuits come....I'm getting dizzy....
oink is in no way private. If a site has an invite system, it is pretty damn public. Now, a site with closed membership, that is private.
What about these searches:
Fedora
America's Army
OpenSuSE
Knoppix
Nay, they can proove that this has legitimate uses too. The RIAA is at it again - using Barretry to their advantage.
Some ACLU group needs to sue the RIAA for barretry.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
"After that happen, you'd be surprised how much of artists you liked are in fact are indies and has no relation to the RI/MA Ass. of America. What's more they'd be happy to know that you have downloaded their song/movie - and thus learned about their existence. And if you liked them payed visit to concert or show."
This seems to be the ongoing line of thought around here - that after CDs are produced no more because no one can sell them, artists will make their livings through live performances.
I wonder, of all the millions of iPod owners out there, how many have never gone to a live show or concert? I haven't been to one in over 15 years.
Lots of people don't want to go out to hear music. They want music they can take with them and listen to when they want to. If they have that, a lot of them are going to be satisfied with that.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Having passed 3.5 million subscribers over six months ago, conservative estimates of their monthly revenue on the World of Warcraft franchise exceed $41,965,000.00. That translates to over half a billion annually, with long term foreseeable growth.
Why?
Blizzard delivers the game via a streaming model, has absolute control of the content, owns the servers delivering the goods, and can continue adding content to keep it's subscribers coming back as long as it's profitable to do so.
Movie studios could do the same by offering a tiered system of streaming content at increasing resolutions on a subscription basis, i.e. 5 movies monthly/annually @ 640x480 = $X / 5 movies monthly/annually @ 800x600 = $XX / 5 movies monthly/annually @ 1024x768 = $XXX. Increase the frequency, pay more. While a simple concept, the watermarking/security technology to ensure there's no redistribution would hardly be trivial.
This then cuts "piracy" off at the knees, and gives studios control of their content again, without the overhead of egregious legal fees or bad PR. Everybody wins.
But, for this model to be profitable it would mean that studios would have to concentrate on putting out quality instead of quantity, and give up using Fx to coverup nonexistent storylines, and that's a topic for another thread entirely.
Now back to our regularly scheduled programming....
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
I understand your pain, but...
Thats fine, I can see that you dont like my games enough to buy them, I am fine with that.
I never said that, since I've never played any of your games. That was my point. Maybe I would download one of them if you gave it away for free, on a whim. And who knows, maybe I'd enjoy it enough to pay for it. I didn't mean to comment on the quality of your games, they might be great. I don't know. It all boils down to motivation: why should I try your games? For some people, like me, it's a plus if the developer delivers the entire product and transfers the decision to pay or not to pay to the consumer. It makes me want to download. You could say I'm not representative of most gamers, but I think there's a culture being currently fostered among file sharers that could become the norm in the future.
If there's the smallest interest in your product, it's a given that it will be available for free download in a p2p network. I think that you should consider distributing the full games instead of demos. There's no point in protecting IP if in reality your games are out there, competing with every single other semi-popular game also available for free in file sharing networks. People who enjoy your games will most likely pay you for it. If you offer the full product, I think you have more chance of getting money back than by only offering the demo. And then, protecting IP wouldn't even be an issue.
Someone's probably going to point me towards Stephen King's failed The Plant experiment, but if I recall correctly, he still got a lot of money even though most people didn't pay for the installments. And hey, that was Stephen King, not exactly the poorest of writers. That counted in people's decisions whether to pay him or not. In your case, there's this romantic notion of the lone independent struggling game developer, and that's bound to get a few people's eyes teared, and some of their money in your pocket in exchange for your games. I know I'd pay if I liked your games. But to know if I like them or not, I must be motivated to try them. Free distribution would be a big motivator.
But your situation is discouraging. Small developers, independent film and music, and the like are viable alternatives for those of us who resent the encroachment by the big content producers. I used to buy a lot of music and games and have rented and purchased a reasonable amount of movies in the day, and certainly less now, but I've discovered games like Uplink, Pontifex or Galactic Civilizations, rediscovered light reading (although some book publishers also suck), and found a local used CD/DVD place to buy those things from. It's not even that I planned to go out of my way to avoid big content -- just that I find myself putting that new game back on the shelf at the store and spending that $50 online to buy a new indie CD and a couple of indie games I can download and play that night. By the way, with as much or more entertainment value than for the big content version, because I preview much or all of the CD before I buy it on the artist's website (some even put concert recordings out for free) and the indie games in my experience have more demos, fewer bugs, and better support than the average game the big publishers have rushed out the door for the $60 collector's edition pre-order fanboys to test.
I guess what I'm getting at is this. All the wordsmithing I read about illicit P2P use not being theft, wanting to try it before you buy it, maybe the game isn't that great, I wasn't going to buy it anyway so you haven't lost a sale, etc. is really just so much bullshit. Freeloading. A handful of us do it and it isn't even noticed, some of us and it makes a noticable blip, many of us and it kills off smaller content providers who cannot afford to continue providing their services. No matter what, big content will continue to work the system to keep their business model viable (some would say artificially, but to them I'd ask how you distribute a multi-million dollar blockbuster without anybody paying for it.) If we're to continue having alternatives, we need to invest in them.
I'm guessing a lot of youth have missed the video, but sadly it is as relevant today as it ever was.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Ironically, downloading fansubbed anime is illegal. Fansub groups are modifying and redistributing copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright owners; that's a pretty clear violation of international copyright law. Luckily, most Japanese anime studios don't care if their shows get distributed outside of Japan, so fansubbing groups that don't touch licensed series are typically ignored. Of course, there are some Japanese studios (such as Media Factory) that do take an active stance against their series being distributed, so you'll never see their shows listed on some place like animesuki, even if they're not licensed yet...
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
"Now, the effort that went into producing that string of bits for the first time is what isn't free, and that effort is what no one has an entitlement to. An artist is free to charge whatever he wants for recording a song, writing a book, etc., and to refuse to do any of it until his conditions have been met. But once he has agreed to do it, the fruits of his labor are free for all of humanity to use, just like any other numbers."
(Emphasis mine)
Well that's the crux, isn't it? "his conditions have been met". Today, the conditions are that he make some millions of dollars for his song.
Today, he can meet his condition by spreading those millions over a few million copies of his song.
Will he be able to do it tomorrow when that is no longer possible?
If he keeps the same conditions, who will be able to afford to meet them? Answer: rich patrons.
If a rich patron does come along and commission a new song for some millions, do you think the patron is going to share what he bought with all of humanity to use? Or will he keep his expensive commission for his own personal use?
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
>> Sure, there are some *good* people who will buy a game after playing a torrented full version, but thats maybe 5%. its the other 95% that are just stealing them with no intention to buy, and its that 95% that the RIAA etc are going after.
See, that's the problem with your line of thinking. 95% of the people aren't going to give you a dime no matter how many people the *AA sues. By suing the torrent sites out of existance you just eliminated the 5% who became extra sales for you.
The ones who get pirate copies of Civ IV today just might turn into the ones who'll plunk down $100 for the super deluxe version of Civ VI, or VII, etc. down the line.
kind of funny and insightful about the differences between real property (an AK-10) and "intellectual" property.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Ghandi was wise enough to choose the right people to protest against.
If ghandi peacefully protested against the chinese communist party, the islamic nationalists in Iran, Sadham Hussien when he was in power, etc. He would have just ended up dead.
The key to dealing with peaceful protesters appears to be to kill them as quickly as possible before they gather a movement.
---
As far as the U.S. media, I'm about ready to puke for how cowardly they have been with regard to the cartoons. They pretend to be so brave when dealing with civilized people but they lack the courage reporters had only 40 to 50 years ago back when reporting on civil rights issues got you killed.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
No. It makes ABSOLUTELY ZERO DIFFERENCE to them. The ONLY case where it makes a difference is if the person would otherwise purchase a copy of some of the content copied, and does not purchase said contents because she copied it. This is the ONLY case that matters.
While I can understand, and agree, that this is really the only case that truly matters - there is an aspect of your statement I do not understand.
If a person wouldn't purchase a copy of something because it wasn't important enough to them - why would they then take it if it was "free"? That argument just seems circular to me. I don't want it --> I can obtain it for free --> Since I don't want it, but I can obntain it for free - I am justified in taking it.
If the issue is with the cost, and you if someone doesn't feel that the cost is justified - well that's really too bad. The manufacturer detirmines cost. True, the consumer determines worth or value, but perceived lack of value does not give someone the right to just take something. It may motivate, but not justify.
Maybe this might not be the best of options... But I recommend that you place some torrent files yourself. Place the demos of your games. If you're feeling lucky, place a full version that has a plea for donations. Maybe you'll be surprised. Certainly you'll earn some respect for it.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Went to the movies last weekend with the family. Curious George. (My 5 year old loved it.) ~$50 for 4 of us (tickets + popcorn). Now I remember why we never go to the movies. And they wonder why theatre attendance is down and piracy is up.
I would like to thank the MPAA for alerting me (and uncounted others) to some good torrent sites.
// This is not a sig.
There are only a very few bands who have made a net profit of millions of dollars. Many of those profits are from concerts. How long do you think it takes to make a million dollars after getting $.50 a CD, AND paying off your RIAA loans? In fact, if you look at most rich artists, they either own their own label or have very, very sweet deals with the RIAA. In general, bands produce their best music for mere pennies while trying to pay off massive loans for overly expensive studio work and advertizing.
Why do you think so many artists stick it out so long "paying their dues" by working for peanuts playing local bars and gigs? I'm sure a lot of them do it for love. I'm sure in the heart of every artist, though, there is some hope that they will "make the big time".
You're right - a whole lot of artists never make the big time. And that won't change. There will still be a lot of "starving artists".
What will change is now there won't BE a big time. Or at least, the big time won't be nearly as big as it was in the era when you could sell copies of your music. There will proably be even fewer rich artists.
What society is witnessing is the proverbial invention of the media printing press, technology that makes producing and distributing massive copies of media works easy and cheap. The monks and scribes who run the RIAA will whine and complain about their reduced status in society, but in the end no one will care and they'll be forgotten. The sooner the better.
I think that's a great analogy. And, like others have said, I think the entertainment industry may come closer to that medieval analogy in that artists will come to rely on rich patrons who can afford to pay for new works. I think those rich patrons will either horde their commissions for themselves, or use the digital artwork as free "bait" to get you to come to a web site or other distribution center where you can be plied with advertisements for physiscal products. In the former case, no one but the patron will get to enjoy the artwork. In the later case, the only artwork comissioned will be that which is deemed commercially suitable to be associated with a product that is trying to be sold. If artists think they have little creative control now wait until that scenario comes into play.
Who *needs* advertizing with iTunes and the web anymore? I don't know about everyone else, but most of the songs I buy off of iTunes, except for classical music, are songs that I have heard on the radio, so in effect, radio is an advertisement for me. I don't pour through the iTunes library looking for new music. I totally ignore the iTunes "front page" with all the splashes for artists I've never heard of. I think things like iTunes and the Web make advertising even more critical if you want to get noticed. iTunes and the Web are huge equalizers. There are so many to choose from that unless something (like advertising) makes you aware of them so that you specifically seek them out it's easy to miss them.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
I actually laughed out loud when I read your comment. Spot on.
Actually, as a student I pirated Civ3.
Unlike before, I have an luxury budget now. I bought Civ4.
Hey thanx for the update.
I really like your idea of explaining how this technology can actually help the content creators, however I'm sure you realize that they are not interested in anything other than trying to control everyones actions, which is consumming them like cancer as we speak. :)
-- My favorite thing about OSS is it's militancy!
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
Thanks for the feedback, its rare, and enlightening to have a sensible debate about the whole issue here.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Bittorrent, ed2k, kazaa, et al. represent the will of a/the people that have been governed by corrupt, hypocritical system that is centered around maximizing profits per individual lifespan; meaning that as long as you are alive you MUST conform to the notion of being SOMEONE's customer i.e. Philip Morris, Exxon, the Bell's, ,etc. If you do not subscribe this ideal of existence you are not valued as an active, participant member of society. As dense as we are as consumers, is evenly measured by just how intrinsically inclined we are as individuals(and animals)to preserve our inherent nature. What these institutions do, and have seemingly succeeded in doing, is programming or creating another manifestation of human nature that serves only the institution and not the individual.
This has backfired.
People are waking up from their slumber, slowly my friends, and now after years of being under their submission and just graciously *accepting* what they deem approriate for us to see and hear to provide us with stimuli(and not even good stimuli as of late)Now we as a people collectively will take back what belongs to us rightfully for every bad movie with plastic, lifeless, actors; coupled with equally plastic and lifeless plots and storylines, or every *good* CD that contains 20 tracks and yet only 2 are good, 1 mediocore, and 17 that are absymal. And I say again, the masses will no longer be robbed anymore, lest the theif is willing to be robbed themselves...this is God's will.
Who says it'll be impossible?
I think you misunderstood me. What I said was:
Today, he can meet his condition by spreading those millions over a few million copies of his song.
Will he be able to do it tomorrow when that is no longer possible?
What I meant by "that" being no longer possible is the spreading those millions over a few million copies of his song. And that will be impossible when everyone copies and doesn't buy songs.
Just because you can't make money selling copies doesn't mean you can't make money.
I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I just don't think you can make nearly as much money.
And just because you can't make a million dollars by selling one copy each to a million fans doesn't mean you can't still make a million dollars - it just means you have to tell your million fans up front, "Give me a dollar if you want me to write another song".
The "rich patron" model is one possibility, but not the only one. We've seen political candidates raise millions of dollars from small individual contributions through their web sites. Now consider that more people vote for American Idol than vote for President! If a political candidate can fund his campaign by getting a lot of people to send in a little money, even when they know that the money will be wasted if their guy loses, just think how much easier it'd be for a popular musician to fund his next album the same way.
That's an interesting possibility I had not considered. I do wonder, though, if it could work. I mean, there's nothing stopping artists from doing that today, and I've never heard of anyone doing it. I imagine it's because if someone, I don't care how famous they are, announced, "Everyone send me a dollar and I'll write a new album!", most people would laugh. Who's going to pay sight unseen for something of unknown value, especially when you could just wait and get it for free anyway?
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Ahh that makes more sense. Lets see, DVDs weigh about 2.5 ounces (including case) so 200 pounds worth would be about 1280 DVDs (assuming pounds weigh the same in Great Britain as they do here).
Yes, I was joking (still am), but it's just not as funny if you have to explain it.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
The solution to which I refer would be for them to work at getting a law passed which required that all residential internet subscribers in the country be effectively locked away from the "real internet", by not allowing ANY incoming packets that in the case of TCP were not part of a stream that was initiated by the residential subscriber, and in the case of UDP was not destined for a port that the subscriber did not make a recent outgoing request from. Also, they would block all incoming traffic to residential subscribers that is not either UDP or TCP so that it would not be possible to subvert the blocking using either raw IP or ICMP. It wouldn't completely stop the problem, in particular non-residential subscribers would still be able to do it, but it would probably stop at least three quarters of it.
Of course, this is roughly the TCPIP equivalent of global thermonuclear war... there would be a fairly high level of "peace" afterwards, but the costs would be unacceptably high.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
This seems to be the ongoing line of thought around here - that after CDs are produced no more because no one can sell them, artists will make their livings through live performances.
It's ironic that the college boys who bitch about the loss of our freedoms at the same time think that no artist should have the freedom to decide what to charge for their product. The advocacy of 'freedom' here on the Slashdot seems to mean (as it does anywhere else) "only the freedoms I personally approve of".
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Artists (real artists) make art for art, not for money.
Bullshit. Artists produce art for many reasons, usually with this appended clause: "...and also to make money so myself and my family can eat."
And boy, here's another wake-up call: you don't get to decide for the rest of us what constitutes art or an artist. You're just another Joe on the street, and your opinion on the matter isn't any more important than anyone else's.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Only the threat of real violence is ever going to stop anybody. Peaceful protest doesn't work.
I would like to think that Martin Luther King Jr. is a prime example of just how absurd this statement is. Do you really think that instead of delivering an inspiring "I have a dream" speach, he shot every white person in the area, would have been a step forward for black civil rights?? Do you think that instead of, peacefully refraining from moving to the back of the bus, Rosa Parks shot up every white person on the bus, that things would have actually changed for black civil rights?? Peaceful protests do work and have worked in the past. It is very ignorant to think that killing people is the only answer.
There's an old saying that freedom must be taken. If we want to be free of these gangsters, then we need to take action, and it's very likely going to have be violent action because these days nobody understands anything else.
The terrorists have won.
Don't you see that by saying, violent action is the only action, you become the very person you despise. Those exact words were probably uttered at a terrorist training camp.
The last time I checked I have the freedom to join which ever religion i wish, I have the freedom to choose which ever career I want to pursue and I have the freedom to speak freely about this very subject without being prosecuted. So no I don't think the terrists have won at all.
I'm just glad not everyone shares your opinion.
Thank God!!
"Come. There's more. [leads them away. Next seen is a small airport at night] Here's Britney Spears' private jet. Notice anything? [a shot of Britney boarding a plane, then stopping to look at it before entering] Britney used to have a Gulfstream IV. Now she's had to sell it and get a Gulfstream III because people like you chose to download her music for free."
- South Park episode 709
It's free money for MPAA, right?
I predict that within 20 years, over 60% of the USA workforce will be lawyers. The rest will be paralegals, legal Secretaries, office assistance, etc. And lots of people will be professional plaintiffs: it's easier than working.
Of course the USA will need a military to keep those other countries in line - hell, somebody has to produce goods and services. All we do in the USA is sue each other.
then they should check out archive.org, etree or any live show trading site and they can listen to free music that someone else heard when they went out to a show.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
I agree completely with everything you just said. Absolutely everything.
:)
A couple points though - while not uniquely American, these lawsuits are almost exclusively American corporate endeavours. I've never heard of a Mexican recording company suing anyone, or a British publishing house trying to extend their copyright to other countries. In fact, there's one Canadian indie music label that's helping an American to fight the RIAA's lawsuit. So while it's wrong to say "only Americans" do this kind of thing, the frequency of American involvement cannot be ignored.
Also, posts here do tend to focus on national boundaries as culture boundaries. I've tried to say "society" to edge away from that - but I don't think it's worked.
I've taken quite a bit of flack for that post - because people don't read it properly, and try to infer that I hate America or something. I'm glad someone here is still on topic.
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
So if I'm paying tax to content providers on blank hard drives and cds, why shouldn't I be able to download anything I want from the internet.
I already paid for it.
The discussion was about the pages with links, not BT itsself.
We were also talking US courts, and US citizens ( at least *i* was.. ) so laws elsewhere would require a different discussion.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
like using them in legitimate wars..
/.
Yes, like the war that freed your country so you could make asinine statements on
Remember folks it's MPAA.ORG. And they HAVE contact information. Now if we overwhelm them with contacts, call every office, alot, set up redundant callings from our PCs, and generally annoy the hell out of them, they will become angry and annoyed and lash out at small children, creating a whiplash which shall destroy them all. Muuuhahahaha Muuuhahahaha Muhahahahaha. Ahheeemm, Oh yeah, contact info. Office of the Chairman and CEO Washington, DC 1600 Eye St., NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 293-1966 (main) (202) 296-7410 (fax) Los Angeles 15503 Ventura Blvd. Encino, California 91436 (818) 995-6600 (main) (818) 382-1795 (fax) New York (Anti-Piracy Office) One Executive Blvd. Suite 455 Yonkers, NY 10701 (914) 378-0800 (main) (914) 378-0048 (fax) Sao Paulo, Brazil Rua Sergipe 475, 10th Floor Higienópolis São Paulo, SP 01243-001 011-5511-3667-2080 (main) 011-5511-3825-5544 (fax) Brussels, Belgium 108 rue du Trône B-1050 Brussells 011-32-2-778-2711 (main) 011-32-2-778-2700 (fax) Singapore No. 1 Magazine Road Central Mall #04-07 Singapore 059571 011-65-6253-1033 (main) 011-65-6255-1838 (fax) Toronto, Canada (CMPDA) 22 St. Clair Avenue, East Suite 1603 Toronto M4T 2S4 (416) 961-1888 (main) (416) 968-1016 (fax)
Osi Osi Osi Osi Osi
op is a cock head...
Major "artists" have their lawyers add the make money clause at the request of the *aa while they vacation on their yacht.
Check with any new/starting artist and I can guarantee you that none are doing it for the money - 'cause they aren't making any. Playing bars pays next to nothing, and that's where they all start. Do they have dreams of making big money? Sure, but then don't we all? Having dreams of making big money, and doing it for the money are two different things. Fuck off hick. Address people with some respect, and some might be returned. You're right, mine is worth no more than yours. And it is precisely for that reason that I balk at letting a multinatonal conglomorate decide what gets air-time. Because neither you nor I was consulted in that process. Some marketer decided that (s)he could sell a particular artist, and so they get played non-stop on the radio, regardless of what you or I think of them.
And before you say that sales is an indicator of what people like (as opposed to my version, which is sales are based on what was marketed) you need to take a quick primer on the effectiveness of marketing. As a hint/starting point, try looking at demandless products like diamonds and coca-cola.
It is precisely because I don't want others deciding what is art that I oppose the current system.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
I had not had these other sites until you sued them. Now I have better access to your medium. You might want to think about offering a product I want and at a resonable price someday, until then I will pirate. Thanks to your lawsuite I now know of more places to get it
I just realized : the only reason the MPAA and others like it exist is to sue *anyone* not being their masters. If they dont, they do not have a reason to exist anymore.
....
In short, that means that they will *never* add something to our society, but will allways (try to) find something amiss with it, just so they can proove their existence.
Even when someone, *anyone* could proove that existence being fully counter-productive the only ones that would get influenced by it would be the **AA itself, not the companies that have created it.
They will *still* continue to tell anyone that any kind of non-payed use of *any* kind of expression (even when it has explicitily been declared a free piece of work by the authors) is a violation against *their* rights, just because that is the reason for their being created/their existence, not because it is in any way prooved to be true
Have you ever seen what a record contract looks like? Artists already make their living off of live performances, except for those who've managed to buy some of their songs back from the real owners (BMG/Epic/etc). This is not to say that file sharing doesn't indirectly affect performers but it's hardly their primary source of income.
the independent productions are picking momentum.
O rly? Independent bands often can't get their music out to adolescents, who control a lot of disposable income through their parents. Radio? Payola. Portable music players? Nope; too many school districts prohibit kids from possessing those on school property. Live performances? Forget it; only bars have an affordable venue fee. The major record labels have proven themselves very adept at levering these limitations of promotion to minors in order to maintain its tight control of promotion of recorded music.
He said that you could learn everything you need to know about US culture by watching "Dude, where's my car".
There they are a conga line of suck holes. On the conservative side of Australian politics. - Mark Latham
There is an Australian comedy called 'Chaser' and they do man in the street interviews with average USians. It is quite an insight into US culture (even more so than 'Dude, where's my car'. Here's the links (you need realplayer and a sense of humour. I have no personal affiliation with these sites).
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/chaser/war/video/
http://www.abc.net.au/cnnnn/
There they are a conga line of suck holes. On the conservative side of Australian politics. - Mark Latham
You're missing a very significant point in your analogy: The *real* product in question is bits, and the manufacturer is a machine. A $500 machine can manufacture bits at a rate of at least 100,000,000 per second. So your analogy of "take something" is wrong - the manufacturer gives it to you because he can manufacture it so cheaply that it's OK for him or her to do so.
What you are talking about as if it was a god-given right is restricting the manufacturers. Now, I make about half my income from such restrictions, so I'm on both sides of the fence. Morally, I see it as unclear.
The "designer sets cost of reading" doesn't work, unless borrowing a book off a library or a friend is wrong. The "reading isn't copying" doesn't fully work - what about people that have photographic memory? I used to be able to recite The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy from start to finish. Should my head be illegal? I assume we both say "No" to that (and agree that it's an extreme example.)
If a book cost too much and I borrow it from the library or a friend, it decrease the revenue for the publisher and author. Yet, this is clearly accepted by society, and defined as "moral" by everybody. Even if it was a book where the cost was *less* than the value I'd get from reading it, and that I would have bought if I couldn't borrow it.
Then we have the next problem: The value of a mass market work to the author is in people buying it, and for a successful mass market work, it is in becoming a part of culture. As each person has limited attention (a maximum of 24 hours of attention per day), this is competing for a limited resource. And society use shared experiences as a communications basis called "culture", which is even more limited. We allow much stronger protection for anything that does NOT enter this area - it's called "trade secrets". It's when somebody start PUBLISHING that the tradeoff comes in effect, and the morals become quite difficult to judge.
One thing that is sure is that society becomes OVERALL RICHER when somebody copy something that they would not be able to afford. New wealth is produced by the transaction. This is only a poblem if the wealth produced comes at the cost of resources not being transferred to the original "designers" of patterns (programmers, writers, film people, graphics artists, etc), stopping the feedback loop for new patterns.
See the complexity?
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
Please don't assume that because I disagree with you that I don't understand - or need help. That's pretty condecending, and typical around here.
Your Library analogy doesn't work because that example deals with a limited supply, a book, that was originally purchased at cost. I can rent a movie from Netflix too, that doesn't make downloading something for free any more acceptable.
You have to take the book back so someone else can enjoy it. The delivery vehicle carries with it limitations that will keep rampant piracy in check. The real problem occurs when the new delivery vehicle is void of such hinderances.
Now we have an issue of people trying to obsficate the concept of stealing by arguing there is nothing to steal - there is no physical entity. You have acknowledged that if the cost of resources is not reimbursed then the creation of new content stops. This is something we both agree on. Yet, you fail to recognize that not everyone is out to be a cultural philanthropist. You extend the concept of lending a book out to be equal with someone giving away 1000 free copies of it. Those are not the same.
To be purposefully blind to the glaring difference between those two examples, and then defend it by claiming that society at large becomes richer is fundamentally incorrect. Society becomes richer because they took the hard work, time, skill, and resources from the individuals who created whatever content is being distributed at no cost. The economics of the situation is that the creator bears all of the burden of increasing society's wealth.
As for my God given rights, I am the creator - so the creation is mine. Why do you think you have some God given right to free access to my creation?
I assume that you are lacking information *as a compliment*. I do not subscribe to weird idea of "opinions" on factual topics. Copyright is tool in an opimization process. This is a factual process. What you write contains disortion of underlying facts; I assume that that disortion is accidental. This is an implied complient, as the alternative is you deliberately disorting the facts. Opionions are for assholes - what I am trying to give you is the underlying facts of how this works so you can make up an informed evaluation. The moral judgements are up to every person - my interest is in the realities of how this works.
OK, now GET RID OF YOUR DEFENSE and instead listen and choose to understand these concepts. This is NOT a debating class, it is a science and economics class, and you get a failing grade if you don't lower your defenses and pay heed to the topic. When you do, we may get to a rational discussion - the solutions and tradeoffs for this are far from obvious, yet first we need to face the facts and THEN we can find out how to act. If you're too uptight in your own importance to be willing to listen to the facts, then don't bother replying.
First, let's go for what I actually say: I don't argue a "God given right to access to your creation". I argue that as long as you keep it as a trade secret, it is only your creation. When you start to distribute it, it becomes partially an aspect of the culture society, giving society a vested interest in it.
Second, I have not acknowledged that if the cost of resources is not reimbursed then the creation of new content stops. I don't get paid for writing this message, and you don't get paid for writing the message above.
In other words, "creation of content" continues. What content is created and consumed will be different with different economics around it - if I had to pay per message posted to Slashdot, for instance, I probably wouldn't. When I had to pay for film and processing to create movies, I created less movies and of lower quality. And since I don't get directly paid for the the time to create movies, I spend less time on making movies than I'd do if I was paid for it. However, I still create movies, and I still write. And before we had copyright, people still told stories.
Content will always be there. New content will always be there. The question is how much, of what quality, and of what topics.
Third, you assume I assume people "are out to be cultural philantropists". No, I don't. I recognize that changing the economics of this will change which people do what. And that's OK. You, however, assume that society has a duty to do effort to protect and keep secret your ideas that you are TELLING PEOPLE PUBLICLY. I disagree. I recognize that this may result in you not getting money, and this may result in your working less to create ideas. This is an effect that may be unfortunate. The issue is a tradeoff between the unfortunateness of you not working hard at creating ideas and the unfortunateness of the limitations and resources spent on protecting those public ideas from public exploitation.
Now, let me talk a bit about words. I'd like to introduce the concept of "nominalizations". That's when we take a process and turn it into a noun. Let's take "journey" as an example. In reality, this is a process consisting of a bunch of travelling, eating, sleeping, etc, which again consists of moving around of atoms. Also, when I talk about a non-specific "journey", join up all the different journeys into one.
Now, nominalizations are useful. They allow us to talk about complex things and cut away all the complexity, by deleting a lot of stuff (which particular foot did I put in front of which other h
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
Jesus christ man. If you understand that I am using "stealing" in place of "copyright infringement" then what the hell is your problem?
I'm not applying my emotions here. I recognize your statements and fully understand them, so you can quit with the crap. I'm sorry you feel that I am treating this as a debate class, but that is far from the truth.
Maybe I should try to make my point in laymans terms so you can choose the correct terminology for me, as it seems you deem my vocabulary choice as a hurdle.
You decide to make a movie with the intent to show it in exchange for money.
You fund this movie with your own money, take your time to make it, and use your skills in photography and editing to refine your vision.
This movie has two purposes; to tell a story and to generate revenue for you. I have already stateted that this would be the intent of this particular movie, not all that you create. You may very well create movies with other intentions.
The content of the movie (story, characters, themes) is being distributed into the public, and I understand your statements on that. There is no WAY I can prevent people from redistributing those things, nor should I. If Bob goes to see your movie and tells Sue the story from it, he did not steal from you. He actually could have created the potential for Sue to go see it because she is interested in it.
When you begin to show your movie for a profit, there is no guarantee that you WILL generate a profit. There is also nothing that says just because you made something that you SHOULD generate a profit, market factors detirmine that.
Yet, when those who do not have permission to distribute your work do so without compensating you - you are being stolen from. Loss of potential profit is still a loss. There was the potential for your movie to generate the revenue you were looking for, and that opportunity was taken from you by those who desired to view your creation without paying. If this has to be discussed as copyright infringement, sure - because that what it is. But there are aspects of copyright infringement that parallel those of theft, and that is what I am keying on.
That's it. Now, perhaps I have not been clear on exactly what I think constitutes this type of consideration. I understand that not all content is created with the intent of profit. Many people create things out of the joy of doing so, regardless of profit. I know this is my view of art, as I don't get paid for most of my work. If the creator wants it to be freely distributed, then by all means go ahead. I don't post stuff on the web and not expect it to be propegated.
That having been said, I still do not understand why creations created with the intent of generating revenue should be freely available to all? I really do not understand this. I understand your statements about trade secrets and I understand that I cannot copyright information and attempt to hold someone financially liable for using that information. Trust me, I get it.
Should I let someone photocopy one of my pieces of art and sell them at 5 bucks a pop with no compensation to me? What if my intent was to have that particular piece available for free? What about if I'm selling this particular piece for 20 dollars and someone photocopies it and then starts giving it away? I flat out do not understand how these things should be allowed. I understand they happen, and I am willing to accept them to some degree as a fact of life.
I usually want to discuss these things in terms of "how to embrace delivery vehicle's ease of delivery for creating new types of content", but I haven't been able to get that far because you keep talking to me like a kid. Perhaps I have chosen the wrong vocabulary, but I'm trying to convey my perception here, so please quit thinking I'm debating you. Quite often my method of refinement in a discussion takes a similar tone to debate - it's the way my family talks.
After rereading my comments and thinking about it for a while, I think my tone throughout this exchange may have been a little sharp. I aplogize, that's not the proper way to conduct a discussion.
I think that mistake is part of the reason for the next mistake: The example in the message I reply to now is in direct conflict with the situation I originally described. There are four types of copiers for a work:
- Those that won't buy the work whether they get a copy or not
- Those that will buy the work only if they don't get a copy (the copy is enough for them)
- Those that will buy the work only if they DO get a copy (samplers, people that prefer the original for supporting the artist, etc)
- Those that will buy the work no matter if they get a copy or not.
Let's disregard indirect effects for a moment. Without indirect effects, copying by class 1 and 4 are irrelevant for the profit potential of the creator/publisher. Copying by class 2 is negative, copying by class 3 is positive. Overall copying is positive for the creator if class 3 is larger than class 2, negative if class 2 is larger than class 3. Accounting for indirect effects, my guess is that class 3 is larger than class 2, though the data there is somewhat debatable.Copying by class 1 and 4 create wealth for society "out of thin air". This copying leads to increased wealth for the person copying, with no associated costs.
In addition to this, there are the indirect effects. Network effects benefits those that are good and copied an "appropriate" amount (leading to increased word of mouth advertising), habit changes might benefit everybody, etc. These effects are extremely complex, and nobody know their total impact.
Apart from that, it's somewhat debatable whether society should grant the privilege of restriction citizens to allow release of creations for profit. I'll use an extreme analogy: If I started producing oxygen and sold it to people, it would be utterly unreasonable to demand that they make sure "my" oxygen atoms didn't end up in the air other people breathe. There is no reason for society to enforce that, even if I want to be able to produce oxygen and try to sell it for profit. The cost of the restrictions would be too high. The same may be true with copyright - enforcing the restrictions (and even making the behaviour illegal) may be too expensive for society. I do not know - I just know that I believe this has to be part of the evaluation.
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
Interesting points.
I think one of the issues is with clearly defining fair use. The DRM answer is really not appropriate as it restricts me in the amount of times I can exercise fair use - not a very elegant solution.
But being that the delivery vehicle now has the same easy, and in some ways easier, method of dispertion as the content - there is no clear borders concerning rights. It's like a diagram with overlapping parts (Ven? Vin?).
The underlying problem is that the business model of capitalizing on the distribution is now broken. Distro is done by people to other people within the same target. I think this may actually hinder some people with great talent from getting into creative endevors because they fear they won't be able to support themselves. True, an artist does it for the art - but there is a real desire for people to be able to make a living doing things that they love. Marginalizing their ability to do so is not really the best for creating a "high quality" culture. I mean, I can only look at High School level artwork for so long.
Also, what happens to the peripheral business generated in order to fuel the controled distribution plan? Advertising, Marketing, Graphic Design, Printing, recording studios, ect...
Now a reduction in some of these services would be OK in some areas. I can really do without marketing people who do research on "Nag Marketing" aimed at children, but I do not want to see artists lose daywork as Graphic Designers. I also don't want to see recording studios close because no one can pay them enough to record.
Perhaps this will only create problems for large lumbering business entities. Hopefully it will only effect the giant corporations that have a vested interest in maintaining the distribution controls in place. Maybe small shops are agile enough, and have overhead low enough, to take the down side of losing copyrights in stride as free advertising.
On an unrelated subject, I would really like to make an image with DRM type code in it that will change the composition of itself everytime it is copied. That way you can distribute it freely AND everyone will have an original work.
I agree with you that the business model is broken, and I'm totally with you on the problem of artists being able to make a living from art. It's a difficult problem. The traditional way (prior to copyright, in other words prior to 1790 in the US, or for the first in the world, prior to 1710 in the UK) has been patronage, playing for live audiences (see e.g. Shakespeare), dontations (tips, basically), selling individual pictures etc, and selling rights to publishers. Publishers used serials and "freshness" to give their material scarcity, somewhat like newspapers today, as well as gentleman's agreements to not copy each other's material. Authors were fairly badly paid.
As for the future, I'm guessing that we'll end up with private copying in all forms being allowed (criminalizing 2/3s of the population seems unlikely), and I see different media as ending up with significantly different problems and problem levels.
Movies can make income on cinema showing, easy access to high capacity media (for a while, anyway), the feel of having a physical thing (with boxes etc), and possibly give bonuses in the form of e.g. chances at meeting the stars if you buy the movie. Cinema alone should make enough income to support reasonably cheap movie production. As an example of what can be done "on the cheap", Sin City cost $4M to make.
Books are probably OK at least for the time being, as people want the physical copy, and printing single copies is (at least for a while) about as expensive as buying a copy. Local printers that can print and bind at a reasonable price seems a far way off.
Music gives fairly little royalty to the actual artists, so the artists may be better off with a tip-based system, at least if the tipping is made EASY. Marketing is likely to somewhat die off for this segment, as Last.fm, Pandora, and similar tools make finding new music easy.
Games. Without copyright and per-copy payment, games is in big trouble. They're played at home, they're hideously expensive to make, and they command fairly little loyalty from the consumers. Maybe - just maybe - the copy protection on the disks and consoles may handle these. PC based games is likely to die.
Graphic artists. Actually, none of the good ones I know (personally) get their revenue from selling pictures in a form where private digital copying is likely to matter. They get it either from games, or from selling custom artwork for advertising use, or from selling physical paintings directly, or from other work (non-graphics related). I'm not sure if these are a representative sample or not - I suspect they're at least somewhat representative, in that I cannot actually think of anybody at all that live off selling pictures on the net.
Now, of these, there's two things that seems to be hit so hard they may go out of business: Record companies and games developers. With record companies come the side business, as you mention. I think there will be some loss of graphics artist positions, that's fairly small, though. The recording studios, however, will be hit fairly hard. However, if their service is really worth it to the consumer, this should increase tip levels for those bands that use recording studios so much that the successful bands will pay for them. I guess it will also create a market for much cheaper recording studios, where software and the musicans themselves do much more of the work.
It will be interesting to see the development here - whether for good or bad, it will certainly be "for different."
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.