45% of Dutch Media-Buying Population Are "Pirates"

Anonymous writes "A non-government study in the Netherlands found that 4.7 million Dutch Internet users 15 years and older downloaded hacked and pirated DVDs, games, and music in the last 12 months — or, about 25 percent of the Dutch population. But there may be an upside to this unauthorized sharing/distribution: 'The average [Dutch] downloader buys more DVDs, music, and games than people who never download,' with illegal downloaders representing 45 percent of consumers who purchase content legally, according to the Institute For Information Law, which administered the study."

Comments

"Content" buzzword

[Mylakovich]

I can't stand this one. Just describe what it is you are talking about. If it's a video, just say "Video", not "Video Content". Nothing is being "contained".

Re:"Content" buzzword

[paimin]

Except various stuff contained in a website -- i.e. content.

Re:"Content" buzzword

[Mystra_x64]

Why are you hiding your name, o'mighty defender of law?

Re:"Content" buzzword

[phantomflanflinger]

Personally: I wouldn't download a car.

Re:"Content" buzzword

[Dun Malg]

Personally: I wouldn't download a car.

I wouldn't either, but I think I might steal a policeman's helmet...

Re:"Content" buzzword

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> 45% Of Dutch Media-Buying Population Are "Pirates"

-1: Flamebait
-1: Troll

Grrrrrrrrrr!

So, how'd I do?

Re:"Content" buzzword

[Hordeking]

Personally: I wouldn't download a car.

I wouldn't download a horse (or a condom). It might be a Trojan!

There's only one possible answer.

[Thanshin]

ARRRRRRR!

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[davester666]

Just think how much more would have been purchased if all these criminals didn't have ready access to illegal material? Obviously, they would have purchased a copy of every single illegal download.

Because of they didn't actually make these purchases, millions of puppies in California had to be killed, because their owners couldn't afford to keep them into adulthood.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[corychristison]

Just think how much more would have been purchased if all these criminals didn't have ready access to illegal material? Obviously, they would have purchased a copy of every single illegal download.

Because of they didn't actually make these purchases, millions of puppies in California had to be killed, because their owners couldn't afford to keep them into adulthood.

I can't tell if you are being serious or not (good job if you aren't!)

I live in Canada so I guess this study does not include me... but I occasionally 'pirate' media. However, said media is in a grey zone where nobody cares in my country. And that would be Television Shows. For the sake of quality, if there is a DVD/BluRay Release I will buy it, though... as I feel it helps more directly than the TV stations do.

I don't feel that piracy is wrong as it really does not directly harm one or more people. Don't even think for a second that taking $1.50 in profit is worth anything to a musician (as only 5-10% ever makes its way back to them). No. That just won't do. I look at it this way: If the song is good and is worth listening to, more than enough people will buy it to support the artist and keep them going. Obviously Piracy is in a parallel with sales, so as sales go up, so does piracy. Just the way it is. You also have merchandise, concerts and various other forms of income to the artist, their label, etc. etc.

Compare that to, say, failing to signal before making a turn? I feel that could be much more harmful. Yet, I see it EVERYWHERE. I witness many times a day where police officers don't do it. Not good enough? Okay. How about speeding up while the intersection lights have changed to Amber. Hell, what if they are full-on Red and some jackass decides to drive right through it. I feel that is more dangerous. I still see it. No way of reporting it as it's one of those crimes a police officer must witness (AFAIK, anyway).

Just because the law deems something illegal, it does not mean it is worth enforcing/fighting.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[davester666]

First, this is slashdot, who RTFA?

Second, obviously, the group of downloaders are self-selecting. Some big media guy would argue that they are more of the target market for DVD's than the other group (non-downloaders). Therefore, if they didn't have the trivial ability to download video's, they would spend more of their money on actually buying videos.

This certainly is plausible, but I haven't seen any articles that make the case for causality (ie, downloading more makes you buy more).

And yes, my original post was meant to be sarcastic, hence the reference to killing puppies.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[johanw]

According to Dutch law, downloading of music and video is NOT illegal. Only uploading is illegal, and downloading of software without permission is illegal. Not that anyone here cares, no private person here has ever been sued for doing any of the not legal things.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[mvanvoorden]

If the goal of the music you make is to make money, you're setting the wrong goal anyway. Music is there to tell a message, or set a specific atmosphere. And another thing is that an artist makes almost no money out of music sales. If you want to support your favourite artist, visit his concert, that's how they make money, and that's also how they experience real gratitude for the effort they put into their music.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[hairyfeet]

Then go back to the way we did it for a thousand bloody years before the IP scam was cooked up! In case you didn't know we actually did have music and art before you could set on your ass and draw a check for 150+ years because you wrote a one hit wonder. It was called patronage and live performances. I know, it is a concept! To actually have to continue working like the rest of us poor slobs instead of making one digital widget and pulling a Disney and sitting on your overfed ass forever. How sad it is to actually be lowered to living like the rest of us and having to continue to work. Sheesh.

Our progress is being held back by these IP "holders" and their crazy ideas. News flash-digital bits are NOT the same as owning land! You may want them to be, but they are not! Example, There is NO reason why we shouldn't be able to buy prebuilt little multimedia servers designed to let us rip our CDs and movies and make them available anywhere in our homes. No more dealing with discs, the kids can watch what they want while the adults watch their own movies, etc. It would be very nice. But we can't have anything like that because the IP "holders" say you only have rights to play the plastic. So if the little bit of plastic isn't there than you can't watch it. AARGH!

I will be SO glad when the *.A.As just DIE already! For 150+ years we had sane copyrights until the IP "holders" decided to bribe our lawmakers. So while they haven't put out anything I would consider actually pirating I for one hope they lose tons of money. They ripped us off by stealing the Public Domain away from us, so anything that happens to them is fine by me. I hope they ALL go out of business. And NO bailouts for you!

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[Hognoxious]

Patronage only worked because the huge wealth inequalities at the time meant that some - usually kings, nobles and churchmen - had loads of money to spend and wanted to show off to others of their class.

I agree that copyright eriods are ridiculously long, but that doesn't mean the underlying concept is wrong.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[Anonymous Coward]

'The average [Dutch] downloader buys more DVDs, music, and games than people who never download,'

Of course they do, this is something the RIAA (and consorts) can't get through their tick skulls. People who download media, often do that to sample stuff and, on the whole, are more prolific media users and consumers, it's just logical. RIAA has been going after their best customers the whole time, hopefully they will start realizing this sometime.

But even if they do, for me, the whole media industry is without redemption, I'll never forgive them for their tactics.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[DMalic]

If, on the other hand, I start demanding a dollar per leaf, everyone in the neighborhood is going to be amused when I don't get paid.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[Bearhouse]

And pot is legal too - that settles it, I'm moving out there...

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[Bearhouse]

I thought that many artists earn the real money these days by live shows, anyway? So they're quite content to have their - erm - content downloaded because it gets them known and so people come to the concerts?

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[Firethorn]

Don't forget that even bars and taverns would often pay somebody to play music because there was no mechanical way to reproduce music. Then you had playhouses that would cater to the less wealthy with plays, acts, and shows.

I agree that copyright periods are ridiculously long, but that doesn't mean the underlying concept is wrong.

My thoughts as well. Personally, I'd go for a 20 year automatic/commercial/'for hire' copyright, 40 year for personal copyrights.

I mean, people are still bickering about the beetle albums!

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[tancque]

Not in the Netherlands. We took it from the sea.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[murdocj]

Then go back to the way we did it for a thousand bloody years before the IP scam was cooked up! In case you didn't know we actually did have music and art before you could set on your ass and draw a check for 150+ years because you wrote a one hit wonder. It was called patronage and live performances.

And as a music lover I assume you will go back to the way we did for a thousand years and not listen to any music that isn't live? No downloads, do discs, if you aren't sitting across from the musician, no music? That work for you?

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[Dog-Cow]

1) I have no obligation to provide incentives to anyone else to create anything. If they feel its worth their time, that's great. If not, I don't care.

2) If you back out of a promise or contract to pay for services after the services have been rendered, you have stolen. Ever hear the phrase "time is money"? You have stolen time. The harm is not physical, but it is certainly financial.

When it comes to copyright, I have never entered into a contract with any producers of copyrighted materials to provide me with said materials. I have never promised them payment for their works. They have no practical expectation that I should ever pay them in any way for any service or product, which they provide whether or not I consume it.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[johanw]

Pot is not legal, but if you only carry a small amount for personal use or sell it under strict conditions the state won't prosecute you. As long as sellers pay taxes of course.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[murdocj]

Even tho I did preview, I missed one typo: "do discs" should be "no disks"...

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[HardCase]

At first I thought you said millions of "people". A little thrill went up my spine and I fired up uTorrent to do my part to depopulate California. Then I realized that you wrote "puppies". No more pirating for me.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[DrLang21]

I used to work with a guy who regularly performs at bars and taverns. Between that and his music lessons, he makes a pretty decent supplemental income. He can't make a living at it, but not too many musicians can make a living with performing music. That has always been the case, and no musician is entitled to be able to make a living at it. If you're an indie band, you will make a lot more money performing than you ever will from record sales with or without piracy. This even holds true for many big hit music name. Sell your records when you perform and if people copy them, you should be happy that your name is getting out and your patronage has a good shot at increasing.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[Clovis42]

In case you didn't know we actually did have music and art before you could set on your ass and draw a check for 150+ years because you wrote a one hit wonder. It was called patronage and live performances.

How does the maker of a video game or movie survive on patronage and "live performances" though? That is a good solution for music, but it doesn't solve the overall problem of copyright. The other IP industries don't need 150 years to make a profit, but they do need a limited time (15 years).

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[b4dc0d3r]

I understand your point, but Disney didn't sit on his ass. His company is still cranking out good stuff.

This is always where I get stuck in the argument. Disney is the reason copyrights were extended, and I can't argue that they stopped producing because of the revenue stream. Consumers actually benefit because of the additional money Disney could spend making theme parks and on software for the animation and good voice actors. And the people who work for Disney benefit since it is such a strong company.

Yes the one hit wonder who only collects residuals and royalties is of no benefit to society, but the vast majority of art becomes socially irrelevant before even a sane amount of time passes (17 years was the original I believe, and very few people are buying music from 1991.)

I would love to find something specific that shows how extended copyright is a burden, but everything I found is philosophy and rhetoric.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[Tubal-Cain]

Only uploading is illegal...

Which is rather difficult to avoid if you don't want to be a leecher.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[ZERO1ZERO]

is it legal to smoke a Joint on the street? Or in your car? Or does one have to smoke in a coffee shop or in their own home? What if you stay in a b+B or a hotel, is it legal to smoke it in there in your room?

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[swillden]

The other IP industries don't need 150 years to make a profit, but they do need a limited time (15 years).

Or five years. That's the point, really, though, we should be having discussions about just how short copyright can be and still serve the purpose of promoting the creation and distribution of content, rather than whether it should last two lifetimes or three.

IMO, the content industry has shot itself in the foot with the massive increases in copyright terms. They're now so long that the vast majority of individuals have NO IDEA that copyright ever expires!

That, in turn, means that most people have at best a vague understanding of why copyright exists and why it's a Good Thing. The "social contract", by which we agree to grant exclusive rights for a time in exchange for increasing the flow of material into the public domain is a strong moral argument for limiting piracy, but the 150-year copyright terms make that argument useless. Individuals can't think "Well, I don't want to buy that now, so I guess I'll wait until it falls out of copyright and get it then", so instead they think "Well, I don't want to buy that now, so I guess I'll just pirate it".

Of course there would still be people who pirate stuff that they could just wait for. But the moral argument against piracy becomes much stronger. Strong enough, IMO, to deter a great deal of it. What you'll never deter by moral argument is the "try before you buy" piracy, but I don't see a thing wrong with that, morally or pragmatically.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[dryeo]

On the flip side, Disney is an excellent example of a company that benefited from the public domain with most of their early hits all based on the public domain. They even went so far as delaying Jungle Book until its copyright expired.
This raises the question of how many others may of had huge success by taking public domain material and basing new art of of it. Perhaps it would of been much better for society to have multiple Disney like companies making theme parks, investing in animation and who knows what else might of been thought up. As well multiple companies quite likely would see more people employed.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[DinDaddy]

Being employed by said mouse, I would point out that most of our 'classic' movies are built around stories from the public domain, which we in turn are now loathe to allow any of our work to join.

So without the reasonable copyright terms of old, Disney might not even exist in its current form.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[corychristison]

Yeah. That's exactly the point. No justification required. If it doesn't move me enough to go out and buy it, it's not worth buying.

If it's not worth buying, I'll probably listen to it once and delete it. If the artist is in on the verge of welfare, good for them. They should learn to make better fucking music or go back to working at McDonalds.

'nuff said. Fucktwat.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[corychristison]

Piracy is wrong. If you've ever been on the other end of it, you'll realise how unjust it is. By pirating, you're giving the creators of good digital work less incentive to make it better. People need to live, and just because there's no direct cost of you pirating doesn't make it right. I can't believe how many people seem to think pirating is not wrong.

If their music is good, there is enough people out there buying it. If there's not, theres probably not much of a chance I'm downloading it anyway. I don't download shitty music to listen to shitty music. I do it to sample it and if I like a good chunk of it on the CD, i'll go buy it. If I like one song, fuck'em. It's mine.

Lets say, someone promised you $200 to clean some leaves. You clean those leaves, but they don't pay you. You're not hurt, and you haven't suffered any harm yet it's still unfair.

We're talking about legality of the matter. Not paying up over a verbal contract does not hold up well in court. Are you going to go out and file a lawsuit over $200? Seems more while than the $1.5 for a goddamned song.

You obviously missed the point.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[mvanvoorden]

Never heard of jingles being pirated ;) Same counts for the other two. Of course, an orchestra member earns money by playing, indeed, for a public, as I already stated in my posting. And excuse me for my bad English, I meant creating/writing music instead of making music, except of course for jingle writers, but that hasn't got anything to do with the music I was talking about.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[Artifakt]

I've been very scrupulously not downloading unliscensed content, partly because I've been posting about the issue for ten years or so, and don't want to give anyone grounds to say I'm just opposed to all this IP for life+ business because I'm a pirate. That said, I'm a living counter-example of the RIAA's position. I keep a budget, and about 10% goes to entertainment. If I downloaded, I'd use that to better decide what to buy, and still spend just as much or little. I suppose that, if I was paying for a download service, that would come out of the total so I'd buy a little less, but that's about it. Right now, I buy books a lot, TV shows a lot, and movies some, and music a little. I can pick up a book and skim though it pretty much at will, and usually have seen at least some episodes of a TV series I buy. Movies and music I often have only a very limited sample, and I've seen a lot of music where the one song I heard on the radio was the only good song on them, so I'm extra careful. Having more free samples available for some media already swings me towards buying more of those media, without any piracy factors at all figured in, so why wouldn't piracy also have the same effect?

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[hairyfeet]

It is called a SANE copyright! I know, it's a concept! From the moment your game hits the shelf you have 5 years to make your money back..no more. And any DRM you use has to be placed into escrow with a master de-encryption key so that when the 5 years is up the rest of us have access to it. If you honestly can't sell your game with 5 years of shelf time and Amazon, then maybe you should find another line of work.

Or would you prefer it as it is now with so many of the games simply gone from the face of the earth? Look at how many games were released in the '80s and early '90s. Now look at how hard it is to get those to work, if you can get them to work at all. I personally have a stack of games that I have to keep a Win98 machine around to run because they won't run in XP, much less Vista. What happens when that machine dies? If we did not have insane copyrights then entrepreneurs could take those games(which would be public domain) and could repackage them much in the way we had shareware discs in the '90s. They would have reason to find ways to make them work, be it a VM, perhaps pre-configured DOSbox on the disc, whatever, because that would be how they could add value and thus make money. And the companies that made the games would have reason to repackage them and resell them, perhaps as packages with their newer games, because simply sitting on the IP until "we can figure out SOMETHING to do with it" simply wouldn't cut it anymore.

As it is now we are simply losing large chunks of our culture. There is a film society(sorry that I can't think of the name ATM) that is racing to save large chunks of our pre 1950 movies. We have already lost many movies by the likes of Laurel and Hardy and Mae West. Why? Because the studios heads can't think of a way to "monetize" the old IP and there is NO incentive for anyone else to try because their money would simply be wasted since they themselves can't repackage it. So they just rot. Look at how many game systems and different PC platforms we have had in the past 30 years. I wonder how many of the games and software for them is lost forever because the rights holders have gone out of business, changed hands a dozen times, etc and now nobody knows who the hell has the rights to those. And as computers get faster and faster it is getting harder and harder to get some of those programs to work. I know because I have to keep building old machines for a client that needs a program(Macromedia Xres) that only seems to run on Win2K machines at less than 3GHz. Anything faster and it dies.

And finally let us not forget that copyrights were supposed to be a CONTRACT, nothing more. In return for a LIMITED monopoly on your work we got a richer public domain. But now the copyrights are literally 2 human lifetimes so they might as well be endless. And does anybody think that when that damned mouse comes close to being public domain that Disney won't crap their collective pants and throw a truck load of cash at our congress critters and get it extended AGAIN! Nope, me neither. With digital changing our world what we need is shorter copyrights, not longer. Especially for computer programs. Because at the current level does anybody seriously think that when 150+ years are up that anybody will be able to get the source code for the games and programs written today? Or that we will even be able to run them on our quantum tunneling super cluster in a box? Nope, me neither.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[Arthur Grumbine]

Of course they do, this is something the RIAA (and consorts) can't get through their tick skulls.

Most appropriate typo ever.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[Hordeking]

Because of they didn't actually make these purchases, millions of puppies in California had to be killed, because their owners couldn't afford to keep them into adulthood.

I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. I really felt sorry for Paris Hilton's little fluffball. And it's not like she's starving herself because she can't afford it.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[Pentium100]

Lets say, someone promised you $200 to clean some leaves. You clean those leaves, but they don't pay you. You're not hurt, and you haven't suffered any harm yet it's still unfair.

Wrong analogy, I didn't ask the musician to sing anything, also I didn't promise him anything.

The correct analogy with the leaves would be: You cleaned the leaves and then asked for the land owner to pay you $200. He told you to go away from his land and didn't pay you anything. Maybe next time you will first ask for money (to have a contract with the land owner) before doing your work.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[Hognoxious]

The odds are against it. Most wannabe commissars subscribe to the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality. Spoiled little wankers.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[Arterion]

Yeah. Imagine how different things would be if every venue or restaurant that plays music was a live music venue. Imagine how much more of "an honest living" musicians -- of all different kinds -- would have the opportunity to make.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[Pentium100]

I didn't listen when he was singing to record the CD, I only listened to the recorded song the same way I listen to recorded songs on a radio. I didn't ask him to sing for me or to record. If he didn't sing in the first place I would not have asked either.

On the other hand, when I go to a concert, my action of buying a ticket is a request for the musician to sing. If noone comes to the concert the musician can choose not to sing. If not enough people arrives (the musician decides that it's not worth for him to sing to those few people (or for such low amount of money collected) he can cancel the concert and give my money back.

If the musician sang on the street (and not in a concert hall or club that you can only get in by buying a ticket), I would not be obliged to pay him anything, though if I like his singing I can pay whatever amount I deem appropriate.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[mjwx]

I thought that many artists earn the real money these days by live shows, anyway?

You still think this is about the artists?

Event the RIAA and record companies gave up on that line years ago, they've practically told us that the artist doesn't matter and its their profits that need protecting.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[jaunty]

That settles it - I'm moving to Holland and I'm going to start paying taxes. There have to be people like me there, paying taxes to keep that great country running.

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[SomeStupidNickName12]

Only way to describe it http://anotherrandomday.com/?id=518/

Re:There's only one possible answer.

[natarnsco]

Hash is legal there but it ain't 100% legal, like you can't just go walking into a restaurant and start rrolling a joint, they want you to smoke in your home or in certain designated places.

Also selling well

[AlterRNow]

Also selling well: eyepatches, wooden legs and stuffed parrots. Arrrrr!

Re:Also selling well

[MadKeithV]

The dutch don't buy wooden legs, they buy wooden shoes.

Re:Also selling well

[clickety6]

so the Dutch pirates don't have a leg to stand on?

Re:Also selling well

[MadKeithV]

That joke is below sea level.

Re:Also selling well

[Hognoxious]

The dutch don't buy wooden legs

The Dutch don't buy anything if they can avoid it.

Re:Also selling well

[Hognoxious]

Well that's a start, I suppose.

Of course this calls for

[HungryHobo]

Stricter legislation! Harsher punishments! Bigger fines! Public whippings!

Re:Of course this calls for

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. And don't forget, more draconian DRM.

Case in point. I just bought an LG DN898 Upconverting DVD player (not HD, not BluRay). Per LG and the Best Buy rep it would upconvert to 1080i on the component (Analog) output. In reality? "Copyrighted" movies play at 480p (non-upconverted), copied, pirated, and other DVDs will play at the full upconverted 1080i.

Yes, they made it more appealing for the customer to get pirated movies now.

So thanks to this encouragement I have bought my last DVD and look forward to only expanding my library through pirating, as pirated movies will now look *better* on my TV! (Oh and no more commercials, FBI notice, or other crap I can't skip).

* If you don't believe me btw, just check here (Warning PDF), page 5 under component connection:

"For 720p and 1080p resolution on the component video output, only non-copy protected discs can be played back. If the disc is copy protected, it will be displayed at the 480p resolution."

Re:Of course this calls for

[HungryHobo]

That really is insane...
I wonder what the logic was.
"Perhaps if we make sure our paying customers get lower quality products than those who pirate perhaps they won't want pirated moveies any more!"

Re:Of course this calls for

[HungryHobo]

Forgot to add.
Expect one of the RIAA advertising drones that seem to have been hanging out on slashdot to turn up and tell you that you're just being an evil thief who wants to justify his actions.

You see by complaining about DRM and stupid DRM features like you have experienced you're a "Pirate enabler" and since DRM is purely about stopping pirates you should really stop complaining, take it up the ass,let your hardware downgrade the video stream, sit through the unskippable advertisments quietly, feel grateful that they allowed you to give them your money and like it.

Re:Of course this calls for

[Jurily]

I wonder what the logic was.

"If they were stupid enough to pay for that, they deserve to suffer."

Sounds like a BOFH to me.

Re:Of course this calls for

[b4upoo]

I'll wager that the pirates have a higher IQ than those that fail to pirate. Therefore beating them down is the right thing to do. Woe unto the nation that fails to beat down the intelligent among them! Let the dullards rule. It's natural law!

Re:Of course this calls for

[xaxa]

That really is insane...
I wonder what the logic was.

Maybe so they'd sell more DVD writers and blank discs?

Re:Of course this calls for

[jeroen94704]

As a Slashdot reader, I'm sure you are tech-savvy enough to rip any discs you legally purchase.

Re:Of course this calls for

[TheCybernator]

Actually Moser Baer has done something similar in India. They crashed the CD/DVD prices from ~Rs.1000 to ~Rs.100 (USD 20 to USD 2)
People now obviously prefer DVD prints over the pirated cam print. This should be and is THE only way to kill piracy.

Re:Of course this calls for

[Briareos]

Yes, they made it more appealing for the customer to get pirated movies now.

Looks more like they made it more appealing to get an HDMI cable (which costs around 5 EUR for 2-3 meters) - upconverting to 1080i works fine on my LG DVD recorder via HDMI. Plus there's no hassle with having to juggle multiple cables...

Re:Of course this calls for

[hobbit]

You forgot to mention terrorists. Selling pirate DVDs is one of the main income sources for terrorists. If you pirate DVDs you might as well be killing your own family, or raping children or whatever it is that terrorists do on the weekend.

Re:Of course this calls for

[Weedlekin]

I've got a set-top DVR / DVD burner / etc. that also encourages using pirated stuff, although for a different reason.

I wanted to copy my boxed DVD set of extended LOTR disks to the HD to (a) avoid having to swap them half way through the movies, and (b) keep the originals in pristine condition. This seemed to me to be very reasonable use for a DVR, but the film studios don't agree with me, so the machine won't let me do this for copy-protected stuff because the manufacturers can't obtain the relevant licenses and trademarks otherwise.

Fortunately, the box has in-built DIVX support and a USB port that can read thumb drives directly, so the solution is obvious: download a pirated DIVX version of each movie, stick it on a thumb drive, and then copy that to the HD, an operation that will also save me lots of HD space, and let me make backup DVDs of my LOTR disks with an entire 2-DVD movie on each. Score: Pirates 2, Genuine Version 0.

It should be noted that I haven't actually downloaded a pirate version yet because I haven't previously pirated anything unless it's the only alternative (e.g. I want something that's no longer available commercially), but this short-sighted policy has made me think about it seriously for the first time. I paid quite a lot of money for what amounts to a crippled product that prevents me from using it in a legitimate way that doesn't carry even the potential for any lost sales by the copyright owners, and if that's the way they treat their paying customers, then I can see no benefit in being one. I will not therefore be buying any more of their products unless they're in a bargain bin for price that's low enough to offset the fact that I'm buying a crippled POS whose true value is lower than that of a free version I can easily find on the Internet.

Re:Of course this calls for

[gaderael]

It sounds like a Bucket Of Fish Heads?

Re:Of course this calls for

[AvitarX]

Is it really that much worse to rip the discs you have?

Re:Of course this calls for

[Neil]

What if the original poster has an high definition display which doesn't have HDMI inputs (many such "HD ready" TV sets were sold before HDMI was standardised a couple of years go)? The fact that he/she checked the capabilities of the analogue component output with the manufacturer and the seller before purchasing suggests this might well be the case ...

Re:Of course this calls for

[Cowmonaut]

One, that's naive. Two, the whole point to DRM is to prevent you from doing that. It doesn't work very well, but that's the point. So on principal I can't fault his logic all that much. He can either pirate so he can continue to use his DVD player he bought so he could legally buy movies, or stop buying them at all. Either way they've shafted him and it doesn't actually cost them anything either way since they're not going to get any money until they ditch the DRM.

Re:Of course this calls for

[daveime]

Ditto the Philippines, where you can get original Warner Bros and other movie studios movies on VCD for 75 pesos (1 dollar 50), and DVD for 250 pesos (5 dollars).

There is no incentive for pirated movies here (although they do still try to hawk their crappy copies for 50 pesos outside the shopping malls, but only as a side business to all the other tat they sell).

But why will you pay 2/3rds for a crap copy, when you can buy the original for still next to nothing.

And that is what the RIAA / MPAA morons haven't realised yet. Make the product a reasonable price, and it will sell, instead of playing extortion games and crippling the enjoyment of legitimate potential buyers, an dthen trying to claim how much they "lost" to piracy. A hell of a lot less than they lost to their own blinkered shortsightedness.

Re:Of course this calls for

[CecilPL]

That really is insane... I wonder what the logic was.

Since I haven't had coffee and can't tell if you're being serious or not...

The logic is "If our customers can play 1080p over analog then it's conceivable they could plug a recording device in the other end and pirate our movie. If we only let them play 1080p over digital then we can also make sure the device on the other end has been certified not to record". It's really quite ridiculous. Most (all?) new HD players do this, as well as Vista.

What it comes down to, is that all new video you buy on disc has been intentionally crippled.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole

Re:Of course this calls for

[db32]

Yeah! In fact, I actually enjoy paying full price for new purchases that are defective so I can take them home and fix them before being able to use them.

Re:Of course this calls for

[Briareos]

What if the original poster has an high definition display which doesn't have HDMI inputs (many such "HD ready" TV sets were sold before HDMI was standardised a couple of years go)?

Well, they're shafted of course. But you don't honestly think the industry cares one bit about that, do you?

(Neither do I, TBH... it's not as if it wasn't obvious that such a stunt was going to come up - if you have to be an early adopter, be prepared to get shafted... HD DVD, anyone?)

np: The Notwist - Gloomy Planets (The Devil, You + Me)

Re:Of course this calls for

[Weedlekin]

I could indeed rip my original disks to DIVX, but this merely serves to highlight the stupidity of forcing entire classes of consumer electronics devices to disable basic elements of their functionality in an effort prevent illegal mass content distribution that's already happening on a vast scale because CSS is such an ineffective protection mechanism that it might as well not be there.

Even more idiotic is the fact that they're doing this with home systems that no pirate of any sort would even consider using for piracy purposes. Professional counterfeiters need high-volume, high reliability systems, and amateurs use the Internet, so the only possible explanation for crippling domestic equipment with no Internet capabilities that's only designed to make a few copies a month is sheer bloody-mindedness.

Re:Of course this calls for

[pohlman0]

Why download pixilated 700 meg pirate rips to bypass the disc nonsense? I just rip my DVDs to divX files using AutoGK set at 100% quality and store them on my media PC. Two or three clicks and you're done. Someone who actually knows what they're doing can do much better than this, but I'm lazy and dumb and that's good enough for me. This also has the added benefit of making it ridiculously simple to set up double features with cartoons, previews, and whatever other added content you want - just click the first file in the series and let the PC do the rest. As with CDs, I use the disc once just to rip it and put it away forever after that.

Re:Of course this calls for

[Blue Stone]

Remember when the heads of movie studios were introduced to the concept of videotape rental? They were shown it operating and were 'horrified':
'What's to stop someone walking into the room where a videotape is playing, and watching it without paying?' - was the cry!

It seems funny to think they thought that, but they have always been dragged into the new technological landscape bewildered and frightened, kicking and screaming.

They haven't changed.

Re:Of course this calls for

[funkatron]

Even if the poster has HDMI on their TV, disabling one of the main selling points of the DVD player for no reason is pretty bad design.

Re:Of course this calls for

[DinDaddy]

So you honestly think $15 or so is an unreasonable price for a movie DVD? I've always thought it was a pretty decent value.

Music CDs are certainly way overpriced, and probably ought to be in the $5-8 range given competition for entertainment dollars, but given theater ticket prices and such, never felt movies were out of line.

Re:Of course this calls for

[daveime]

Yes, when the price of a recordable DVD is 12 pesos (25 us cents). Add on packaging, artwork, distribution, etc ... if they can afford to sell them HERE for 5 dollars, why does it cost you guys 15 dollars for the same thing ?

It's a valid point you make about cinema tickets, and out here it's still a regular form of entertainment, as a cinema ticket will cost about 2 dollars 50. However, if you want to watch a movie twice, you might as well just buy the DVD.

Re:Of course this calls for

[Reziac]

Works for me. In fact last month I noticed a TV show that I wanted... I could download it for free, or I could pay $5 for the full season at Amazon (plus $3 shipping). For $8, it wasn't worth the time and bother of downloading; I bought the DVDs instead.

Re:Of course this calls for

[sponga]

Because no one can copy a DVD print right?

I don't understand, if a screener or early release gets out people will obviously get that instead of the cam.

Some guy is probably selling them for (USD)$1

Re:Of course this calls for

[gillbates]

Hate to burst your bubble here, but unless the content on the disk is actually 1080p, upconverting doesn't get you any better picture quality. Sure, they can upconvert the video signal by essentially blowing up each frame, but that's doing little more than watching standard def video on a high def screen - which most tvs already support anyway.

Re:Of course this calls for

[adminstring]

It seems that DRM, like gambling, is a thinly-disguised tax on stupidity.

Re:Of course this calls for

[Weedlekin]

"Why download pixilated 700 meg pirate rips to bypass the disc nonsense?"

The point isn't about bypassing the disks so much as the fact that I resent having spent a lot of money for something with deliberate limitations which I wouldn't have to work around if I'd downloaded a free pirate version from the Internet, or bought an uncannily similar boxed set from a Chinese guy with a market stall for a small fraction of what I paid to earn the privilege of shouting "Yippee, I'm making Peter Jackson richer".

"I just rip my DVDs to divX files using AutoGK set at 100% quality and store them on my media PC."

The fact that there's plenty of free, easy-to-use software for every major platform (i.e. Linux, Windows, MacOS X) and a variety of minor / obsolete ones that can rip DVDs and remove annoying stuff like "no-skip" parts, region codes, and ads IMO only serves to highlight the stupidity of forcing manufacturers of stand-alone domestic equipment to disable areas of functionality when they detect a "protected" commercial DVD.

"I'm lazy and dumb and that's good enough for me"

This is also an excellent description of me, so we're once again back to the point of why mass market equipment being made today has to be functionally shackled by an obsolete DRM system that even addled people like myself can work around with ease. What they're obviously trying to do is prevent people from copying rented DVDs, but anyone who wants to do this already can, and the system affects DVDs people own too, so the net effect is to annoy legitimate customers without doing anything to prevent people from copying rented material if that's what they want to do.

Re:Of course this calls for

[cffrost]

Hollywood DRM Molested Interface? No thanks.

It's not all that surprising...

[91degrees]

An unscientific look at my friends seems to suggest that the people who buy the most also pirate the most. There actually seems to be a fairly consistent ration between amount downloaded and amount purchased.

On the face of it, it's illogical for them to buy anything but clearly there's some good reason for them to do so.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[mcvos]

An unscientific look at my friends seems to suggest that the people who buy the most also pirate the most. There actually seems to be a fairly consistent ration between amount downloaded and amount purchased.

It's been common knowledge for quite some time now. Only the industry insists on ignoring it.

On the face of it, it's illogical for them to buy anything but clearly there's some good reason for them to do so.

A lot of downloaders have surprisingly high ethical standards. Some purchase a legal copy, don't install it (because of DRM) and download the cracked version instead.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[Rewind]

I have noticed this too. The people who consume the most, well... consume the most. They are just content whores :) Some they will pirate, things they can easily get and like they will buy as much of as they can. They just want the content, whatever is the easiest way for them to get it most of the time. At least this is what I have seen.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[mcvos]

I don't think 50+% of the people are actually opposed to copyright. They're just opposed to it being used as an excuse for harmful DRM and other complications. They want to see their movies and play their games, and don't mind paying for them if they're any good, but paying lots of money for crap that doesn't work gets tired really fast.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[mcvos]

I have noticed this too. The people who consume the most, well... consume the most. They are just content whores :) Some they will pirate, things they can easily get and like they will buy as much of as they can. They just want the content, whatever is the easiest way for them to get it most of the time. At least this is what I have seen.

So smart producers will make sure that paying for it is the easiest way to get the content. That means paid downloads without crippling DRM. That means your HD DVD or BluRay should simply work at full resolution no matter what. That means CD you buy should be rippable so you can put them on your mp3-player.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[vux984]

It's been common knowledge for quite some time now. Only the industry insists on ignoring it.

Yes, its common knowledge that there is a correlation, but are they in anyway meaningfully linked. I mean, the pro-infringement camp like to point to this and say, look infringement is actually increasing sales... the more people download the more they buy.

But is that true?

Here, for example, is a simple hypothesis that explains the correlation:

People who aren't particularly interested in music aren't buying or downloading much.
People who are interested in music buy and download more.

Thus the real question is:

Does downloading music actually increase the amount you buy, or is it simply the case that the people who are most interested in music download and buy the most.

A lot of downloaders have surprisingly high ethical standards. Some purchase a legal copy, don't install it (because of DRM) and download the cracked version instead.

Don't kid yourself; for every one of those, there is an entire legion of people who downloaded the cracked version and never bought the legal version, or at best buy it years later in some discount bin if they had fond enough memories of it.

The only question is what percentage of those that chose to infringe it would have bought it if that was the only way to get it. Obviously, a huge swathe of them would simply have done without.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[HungryHobo]

Yes,
I download a great deal of material, why? Because it's easier.

I pay a subscription but I doubt the money is going to the artists, if the copyright holders could get their heads out of their asses and provide a single place where I could get everything I wanted- movies, music, ebooks, games from all studios and all providers without DRM and at a similar price then I'd be quite happy to pay them instead.

I do think copyright is broken, the lengh of time is insane for one thing but copyrights and patents have their uses.

So yes, I'd be one of those pirates but I'm not totally opposed to copyright.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[mcvos]

Yes, its common knowledge that there is a correlation, but are they in anyway meaningfully linked. I mean, the pro-infringement camp like to point to this and say, look infringement is actually increasing sales... the more people download the more they buy.

Pro-infringement camp? Your choice of words exposes your biased world view. Few people are pro-infringement. Sure, they exist, but most people are simply pro-being able to use stuff. How much they insist on paying money for that varies, but it's all about the content, not the infringement. That's just a by-product of getting at the content.

Does downloading music actually increase the amount you buy, or is it simply the case that the people who are most interested in music download and buy the most.

...

The only question is what percentage of those that chose to infringe it would have bought it if that was the only way to get it. Obviously, a huge swathe of them would simply have done without.

You seem to live in a fairy tale land where there's a magical dial to regulate the number of downloads. Illegal downloads don't cause stuff, they are caused by stuff. If you don't like illegal downloads, you need to look at the real causes.

Even more so, illegal downloads aren't even an interesting statistic to producers. They should only care about the number of sales. If sales and downloads both go up, they're still doing something right. If sales and downloads both go down, they're still doing something wrong. The downloads don't matter, the sales do.

A situation where downloads are impossible is simply not going to happen outside magical fairyland. All that matters is: how do you get people to buy your stuff. Stop seeing downloads as missed sales. Many of them are sales, many others would never have been sales.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[HungryHobo]

Well we could look at IP owners who saw sense and tried putting everything online for free.

Now if you're right then there would be no effect on their sales of DVD's and such.
If you're right then they would gain little from it and might even loose sales.

Now lets look at an example...
http://www.youtube.com/user/MontyPython

http://entertainment.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/25/0041202

Now to be fair they only experienced a marginal increase in DVD sales... barely enough to notice but still.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[rhyder128k]

I was surprised that this news item didn't have the causation=!correlation tag. I wish I had the points to mod up your appraisal.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[mcvos]

Heck, the complete medieval, rome and shogun was on sale for 24 some months ago!

When Medieval 2 Total War came out, my PC wasn't even powerful enough to play it. Now I have a PC that can play it, and what do you know? I find the game for $10. Cool stuff. I just hope it doesn't have crippling DRM, but $10 is low enough to take that risk blindly.

I've paid over $50 (sometimes a lot more) for other games, but only when I knew in advance they'd be good and they'd work.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[camcorder]

A lot of downloaders have surprisingly high ethical standards. Some purchase a legal copy, don't install it (because of DRM) and download the cracked version instead.

I'm not supporting DRM, but isn't the illegal sharing of copyrighted materials is the cause of DRM at first place? I don't believe content creators woke up one day and thought making sharing their copyrighted materials harder is needed without any reason. If downloaders don't like DRM, then they should instead find legal ways to get over with DRM (ie. boycott, complain, sue) instead of giving a good claim to those using DRM on their products.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[icebraining]

You know, those sales aren't supporting the developers, they happen because the stores have them in stock, but they won't order more, so you're only supporting the store. And the same goes for second hand trades.

So, if buying a old game only gives profit to the store, but not the developers, and the only thing the store deserves money is distributing games to the people, if you don't need their service, why should you pay them? So, if you download it, you're not hurting anyone, you're just not using the shop services.

So, the only thing worth buying is brand new games which makes stores buy more copies from the editor.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[andy.ruddock]

That's assuming that the developer gets paid when the copy is sold at the store.

Since the store must have bought it from a supplier further up the chain, surely the developers have already had their cut. The store's only selling it cheaply because they have only a finite amount of space on the shelves and in the warehouses.

Buying second hand, the sale's already happened and the developers have already been paid.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[mcvos]

I'm not supporting DRM, but isn't the illegal sharing of copyrighted materials is the cause of DRM at first place?

The fear that illegal sharing is hurting sales, certainly. Let's face it, copying software is as old as software itself, and trying to prevent that is almost as old. The problem is, it doesn't work. By its very nature, you can't prevent software from being copied, and invasive DRM is certainly the wrong answer.

If downloaders don't like DRM, then they should instead find legal ways to get over with DRM (ie. boycott, complain, sue) instead of giving a good claim to those using DRM on their products.

The downloaders aren't harmed by the DRM, the paying customers are (many of whom resort to downloading the crack despite having a legal copy). That's the entire reason why DRM is the wrong solution. It encourages piracy.

And suing your customers isn't a good solution either. The only good solution I'm aware of is providing better quality and better service to paying customers. That's what Stardock, Valve and (to a lesser extend, perhaps) iTunes are focusing on, and that seems to work.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[xouumalperxe]

In other news, people who consume more content acquire more of it to, by whatever means. That's the grand conclusion I reached, at least.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[xouumalperxe]

that'd be "too", not "to". Oopsie.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[DMalic]

No. There are many effective business uses for DRM, including price segmentation, market segmentation, rentals.. The idea is that when you control the only source of content (the new Shrek movie), you can restrict all features (where the movie can be played, when, for how long..) and open them up, one at a time, for a fee. By doing this, you can strip as much money from each person as they can possibly afford to spend on Shrek. I just had a friend buy some movies while vacationing in London. Unsurprisingly, he can't play them here.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[sFurbo]

If the store knows it can sell excess items at a discount later, the price of ordering too many lowers, and it is more likely to order more in the first place, so the stores expectation of having bargain customers do support the company making the game.

The second hand market is somewhat the same, if you know you can sell it second hand when you are done with it, you should be willing to pay that much more for the product, or should be a little more willing to buy the product, leading to increased sales.

Well, if people were rational, it would be that way. Whether that is a reasonable assumption is another discussion.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

If 90% of the population are speeding on a regular basis, that in itself is not a good reason to abolish speed limits
No, but clearly the limit in the area of where those 90% are speeding should be raised. Particularly if they are using 1950's bias ply tire models to determine safe speeds through an area.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[daveime]

If 90% are speeding, then perhaps it tells you that the speed zoning is inappropriate ?

And last time I checked, 90% would usually be considered "most" ... making your second point somewhat moot.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[G-forze]

But even buying second hand gives money to the previous owner who in turn might be able to afford that new game he's been wanting but not had the cash for. Or the option of selling the used game might make someone more inclined to "risk" buying a new, expensive game because the money isn't necessarily lost if the game sucks or is quickly played through.

So even second hand games return money to the game studio.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[jecblackpepper]

Does downloading music actually increase the amount you buy, or is it simply the case that the people who are most interested in music download and buy the most.

I don't have stats so this is just speculation based on personal experience. Availability and access (via 'free' downloads) can increase a person's interest in music.

From a personal point of view, having easy access to lots of MP3 ripped from my CD collection (which was illegal at the time) reignited my interest in music and led to me buying CDs again after a long gap. And considering books, access to a free library of books at Baen has meant that I've tried before I bought, and now I'm buying more books from Baen than from other publishers.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[jecblackpepper]

One could look at Baen and their free e-books - I know it's not the same as music since most people prefer physical books - but they've clearly demonstrated that offering (some) material free increases their sales.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[mdwh2]

Yes, its common knowledge that there is a correlation, but are they in anyway meaningfully linked.

The argument put forward by the pro-RIAA camp is that downloading leads to lost sales. The burden is upon them to prove that claim. Even if it's simply that "the people who are most interested in music download and buy the most", it shows that their downloading isn't causing them to lose interest in buying music.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[PMBjornerud]

Some purchase a legal copy, don't install it (because of DRM) and download the cracked version instead.

Been there, done that. I have a still shrink wrapped copy of Spore in my games shelf, and a pirated version installed.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[DrEldarion]

Once again, people need to remember that correlation != causation, even when it's contrary to what you want to believe.

What if it's just that people who are more interested in watching media are both more prone to purchase or illegally download it, and that if they could not 'pirate' it, they would buy more?

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[Dark_MadMax666]

Copyright is the barrier which prevents free market create efficent and convenient distribution systems for content. I mean how ridiculous is that torrents are much more convenient than any legal channel? -they provide better speeds and better quality products.

For example I bought Witcher enchanced edition on D2d. Not only it took 2 days to download 10 GB (most of which was non english resources ,useless to me) , I also got restricted content ( e.g. without sex scenes and with no blood). Then I went to mininova and downloaded 3gb version which had everything enabled and no restrictions and I got it at 650 kb/sec (while d2d was 150 kb/sec).

I generally "buy" stuff to reward developers or artists, I dont actually get stuff from legal channels because it is pain in the ass.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[vux984]

Pro-infringement camp? Your choice of words exposes your biased world view.

My choice of words was about as neutral as I could find. Your reading into them a whole "biased world view" suggests that your just spoiling for a fight.

Few people are pro-infringement. Sure, they exist, but most people are simply pro-being able to use stuff. How much they insist on paying money for that varies, but it's all about the content, not the infringement. That's just a by-product of getting at the content.

You could make the same argument about thieves. After all, they aren't in it for the thieving; they are simply pro getting stuff, and how much they insist on paying for it varies, but its all about the stuff not the thieving. The thieving is just a by-product of getting the stuff.

Yeah, it was a pretty retarded argument when you made it too.

You seem to live in a fairy tale land where there's a magical dial to regulate the number of downloads. Illegal downloads don't cause stuff, they are caused by stuff. If you don't like illegal downloads, you need to look at the real causes.

Again. Same applies for theft. If you don't like theft you need to look at the real causes. (After all wealthy people shoplift too, for a variety of reasons.)

Even more so, illegal downloads aren't even an interesting statistic to producers. They should only care about the number of sales. If sales and downloads both go up, they're still doing something right. If sales and downloads both go down, they're still doing something wrong. The downloads don't matter, the sales do.

The sales are critical. But the downloads do also matter. Suppose McDonalds launches a new burger and sales and profitability both go up, but employees are stealing them at a higher than usual rate too. Yeah the burger was a success and worth doing even if the theft has gone up because profitability is up, but that doesn't mean you simply ignore the employee theft problem.

A situation where downloads are impossible is simply not going to happen outside magical fairyland. All that matters is: how do you get people to buy your stuff. Stop seeing downloads as missed sales. Many of them are sales, many others would never have been sales.

Ditto for theft. A situation where it is impossible is simply not going to happen. However, we continue to seek to improve ways of finding people to buy our stuff instead of steal it.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[argiedot]

Tor's free e-book thing was also like that. Seriously, the second the sequels to some of those books are available here in India I will buy them. A brilliant plan to introduce readers to new authors.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[argiedot]

But when it comes to music, does that even make sense any more? How much simpler than The Pirate Bay can you make your distribution system? The DRM-free FLAC you provide isn't going to be any better than the DRM-free FLAC The Pirate Bay provides.

So unless you're providing a CD + instant download + incredibly simple purchasing process, paying for it will simply not be the easiest way to get the content. If any of those things is missing, the pirated copy is automatically easier.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[stephanruby]

So smart producers will make sure that paying for it is the easiest way to get the content. That means paid downloads without crippling DRM. That means your HD DVD or BluRay should simply work at full resolution no matter what. That means CD you buy should be rippable so you can put them on your mp3-player.

Yes and no. An easy way to get the content, yes. At the click of the button, yes. Without a mandatory FBI/preview/commercial that I must watch through, yes. That being said, forget the resolution. I have a huge HD TV, but I can handle the shitty resolution streaming Netflix gives me (a couple of movies excepted).

I love my streaming Netflix. Unlimited streaming movies at a reasonable price, that's all I really need.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[PMBjornerud]

So yes, I'd be one of those pirates but I'm not totally opposed to copyright.

The problem is rooted in corporations bribing lawmakers and extending copyright to life + 90 years.

A computer game these days is forgotten in 5 years. Movies either flop or earn back the investment during the first year, if not week.

The copyright length should have been reduced, not extended. The 90+ years is purely a cash machine and does not provide additional value to society, which is the basis why we created the concept of copyright to support.

There is a huge gulf between the current legalization and common sense. If the law had been fair, people would respect it.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[Artifakt]

Right. The opposite of "People who pirate necessarily buy more too", is that there's no correlation. In other words, it would be "People who pirate don't generally buy more or less than people who don't.", or something like that. If it's impossible to prove that there's any causation for "people who pirate also buy more", then its also impossible to prove for "people who pirate buy less". The law assigning statutory damages in place of real ones for copyright violation is based on a causation argument, ergo, the industry is now claiming that causation only applies in court when it's in their favor. They ought to have to test that argument in front of SCOTUS.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[Artifakt]

Maybe, but most people genuinely want to 'play well with others', and many are smart enough to consider long term costs. People will tolerate small barriers so that they can "do the right thing", until the barriers become more severe (even if they don't all define the right thing exactly the same way). I'd submit that the high percentage of pirates doesn't reflect looser morals than in the past so much as it reflects increasing barriers.
      For me, DRM is just one more. Getting money to the artist is doing the right thing, but getting it to the company that has decided the artist can't sign autographs except on their terms no longer is. Paying an increasing share for distribution while distribution costs are decreasing thanks to digital systems is a barrier. Being told I can't make a backup on content I bought is a barrier. EULAs are a barrier. Enough barriers, and gridlock occurs. People can be 'selfless' and want to pay the artist, they can be 'selfish', and still smart enough to realize they have to pay the artist if they want more works in the future, or they can even be 'selfish' and stupid, and the morality doesn't matter, gridlock still happens.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[Acer500]

I don't think 50+% of the people are actually opposed to copyright. They're just opposed to it being used as an excuse for harmful DRM and other complications. They want to see their movies and play their games, and don't mind paying for them if they're any good, but paying lots of money for crap that doesn't work gets tired really fast.

So true. I know an important member of INTA http://www.inta.org/ who would pay any money to see some certain Chinese films... only there's no legal way to get them !!! So he shamefully asked a relative to pirate them.

My uncle has a great DVD player.. but he had to buy a cheap DVD player because his "great" DVD player doesn't show his DVDs so well on his big LCD (I've just read in another post that DVD players don't upconvert some copyrighted DVD's, that most likely the cause).

The IDIOTIC pratice of trying to separate by zone DVD releases to maximize profit and some other political turf wars means VERY EAGER customers turn to pirated versions.

Personally, there is a TON of content I would buy if only people sold it to me !!! (living in Uruguay is hard if you want English or German or Japanese-language stuff).

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[mcvos]

You could make the same argument about thieves.

Not the same thing.

Again. Same applies for theft.

Not the same thing.

Suppose McDonalds launches a new burger and sales and profitability both go up, but employees are stealing them at a higher than usual rate too. Yeah the burger was a success and worth doing even if the theft has gone up because profitability is up, but that doesn't mean you simply ignore the employee theft problem.

Not the same thing.

Ditto for theft.

Not the same thing. You're comparing apples and oranges.

By stealing hamburgers or other physical products, you deny someone else the use of that product, it costs resources, etc. That's not the case with illegal downloads. Furthermore, how many thieves leave money for the stuff they stole? Some downloaders do that. They download the crack because the legally purchased software is no good. How many physical products exist where a stolen version is superior to a legally purchased version?

You're comparing apples and oranges, and those are not the same thing in a variety of ways.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[91degrees]

No, no. Not trying to suggest that at all. Just observing that the factors that encourage people to buy lots of media are the same as those that encourage them to pirate lots.

I doubt one causes the other to any degree. But it does suggest that just because people can pirate everything doesn't mean they will.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[mcvos]

Many years ago I read a story about an artist who had some hits in the '60s or '70s. Decades later she started a website where some of her songs were available for free, and suddenly her sales go up again.

Exposure means sales. Downloads means exposure. It's a very simple equation.

The only artists who don't benefit from downloads are the ones suffering from overexposure already.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[vux984]

By stealing hamburgers or other physical products, you deny someone else the use of that product, it costs resources, etc.

What difference does that make? You can bleat that its "not the same thing", but in this particular argument they are. Plain old fashioned theft is as far as businesses are concerned at the profit level is just another element of doing business that impacts the profit level. Its just an abstract loss. No different from the abstract losses that occur when inventory is poorly managed, and sales are lost because you didn't have widgets in stock when you should have. Similarly illegal downloads are just another abstract loss.

Furthermore, how many thieves leave money for the stuff they stole? Some downloaders do that.

Theives and shoplifters often come back and shop at a store they previously stole from if they liked the product selection, or whatever.

They download the crack because the legally purchased software is no good.

But those people aren't infringing copyright. They don't need to download 'pirated' games. They effectively bought the game and downloaded a 3rd party add on to make it "better". Not much different than buying a car and then replacing the rims and stereo with aftermarket parts, or putting a new skin or modchip on your xbox.

How many physical products exist where a stolen version is superior to a legally purchased version?

1) Please explain how an illegally downloaded X is superior to a purchased X that was then ripped or cracked?

2) Pretty much any stolen physical property is superior to legally purchased versions if you are allowed to assume modifications have been made to the purchased version the way illegal downloads have been modified from the purchased version.

If I steal someone's DVD player after they added a region free firmware then its "superior" to the purchased version. If I steal someone's ipod after they fill it with their music and put it in an expensive case its "superior" than the purchased version. If I steal someone's car after they make performance enhancing modifications and install upgraded rims its "superior" to the purchased version. The list is pretty much endless really.

Why it makes you wonder, why does anyone buy anything? The stolen stuff is always cheaper, and if you steal the right 'version' of the stuff, its better than what you could have bought too.

You're comparing apples and oranges, and those are not the same thing in a variety of ways.

Except they are both fruit. And in this case, that's all that matters. I agree completely that there are significant ETHICAL and MORAL differences between infringement and theft. I agree that in certain arguments their are pragmatic differences between infringement and theft due to the real resources that are being consumed.

But when comparing the two in this particular argument, where both products are profitable after theft and downloading are factored in, and both can simply be represented by how much they are impacting profit then really their is no salient difference. They are both simple costs of doing business that can be, to some extent, controlled, and that if they get too out of hand can make the business itself unprofitable.

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[Pentium100]

Well, FTP is easier than BitTorrent to get files, you also do not need to upload anything, so you do not need a fast upload speed (well, at least for movies/music anyway).

So, the RIAA could set up a FTP server. You pay some money a month to get access to it. Music is available in different formats (MP3, FLAC, WAV) in that server.

The same can be done with movies.

This can be simpler. You get the same ease of use as TPB, but no longer have to worry about the quality of the rip. Also, you can download songs made by not so popular artists (no torrent on TPB).

Re:It's not all that surprising...

[bzipitidoo]

50%+ haven't had much reason to care, and certainly aren't well informed on this issue. When we encounter problems, it's as likely to be bad hardware as DRM. Too often, you can't easily tell.

Copyright per se isn't wanted, art and science is what is wanted. People want there to be compensation for art and science, to encourage it. Copyright is supposed to be a means to this end. But the law has been hijacked by insatiable parasites.

Even if these copyright extortionists weren't a problem, copyright and intellectual property law is still fundamentally flawed. It hog ties our culture. The whole idea that it isn't legal for a person to make anything of our culture without first checking high and low in futile attempts to determine the undeterminable, or seeking every permission that might possibly be needed, is bogus. It's a huge waste of our resources, a giant toll upon our economy for, arguably, little gain or nothing, or even a loss. It's as if everyone, every minute had to get permission to breathe. We have often seen disclaimers that the authors of some open source project can't guarantee that their work doesn't infringe, because they haven't the resources to conduct a proper search. Well, no one has the resources to do that. Instead, if it is something you need, you just go ahead, and hope you can afford save it whenever a bunch of trolls try to kidnap it. These days, big organizations hold a lot of prisoners, so they can settle kidnapping issues quickly with prisoner exchanges. Woe unto the little guys, the very ones the system was supposed to help, as they have no such resources.

As to replacing current IP law, patronage deserves another serious look. I feel society has yet to really grasp the Information Age. The Gutenberg press made copying orders of magnitude easier, faster, and cheaper. Many, many more recent devices have improved on that hugely. Then radio and TV made mass reception possible. Now the Internet has brought distribution to the masses. And all this is only going to get better. Copyright's day is done.

Small detail

[Anonymous Coward]

In the Netherlands downloading music and movies is not illegal (yet). Uploading is another story...

Re:Small detail

[CBravo]

there are other options, like downloading via newsgroups. See http://www.ftd.nu/ (warning: dutch) for example.

Re:Small detail

[icebraining]

And Shareminer (aka Google search with parameters for searching "rapidshare" and "megaupload"). Its possible to find plenty of old music albums not available in stores.

Re:Small detail

[endymion.nz]

The first rule of usenet is...

Re:Small detail

[Anonymous Coward]

This is sort of nitpicky, but there is no legal precedent for that argument, especially not with Bittorrent. There are a number of details why it won't apply:

Unlike the FastTrack, Napster and Gnutella networks, the uploading you are referring to is inherent in the technology and not an after-the-fact condition. Technological details are usually not relevant when pursuing a user of said technology.

Secondly (but this probably won't fly in court), what is being uploaded to each peer is just a small section a file, and excerpts of copyrighted material are usually exempted by fair use.

usual disclaimers apply. IANAL, DTTAH, WEB.

Re:Small detail

[CBravo]

As long as there are cracked servers/clients, there will be illegal content available. U***** or not.

It's windows' fault (is there a Godwin alternative for saying this?).

Re:Small detail

[Basje]

In our copyright code it is expressly permitted to make a copy of music or movies for one's own use, practice or study. This copy may be made from any source, legal or illegal. The source has no effect on the legal status of the copy.

So not only is it not illegal to copy these works, it is even perfectly legal. However, copying software without permission is almost always illegal.

And yes, I _am_ a Dutch IP lawyer.

Re:Small detail

[DaVince21]

What do you mean, "no option to disable uploading"? If you limit the maximum upload speed to 0 KB/s you're effectively disabling uploading.

Legal

[Anonymous Coward]

An intersting bit to note,in a nutshell, In the netherlands it is perfectly legal to download music and videos from anywhere as long as it is not uploaded again or used for commercial gains. (personal use is A-OK)

Although many programs (bittorrent mule etc) automatically upload parts of it again, The ducth (majority) can therefore only be seen as mediocre pirates and not as true pirates!

I love my very legal newsgroup server :)

in other news...

[roalt]

... studies found that people not interested in listening, playing or watching any media are not buying it, nor downloading it illegally.

Re:in other news...

[Bearhouse]

Mod parent funny or insightful depending on your mood. I smiled.

Re:in other news...

[dontmakemethink]

...other studies found that of those disinterested in buying mainstream Blu-Rays, less than 50% were Dutch. These Dutch extremists must be brought to justice!

Correlation or Causation

[colganc]

Are they correlated or one causes the other? I don't think its clear.

Re:Correlation or Causation

[mcvos]

Are they correlated or one causes the other? I don't think its clear.

They are quite clearly correlated. The causation isn't so obvious, but my guess is they're both caused by a desire for games, music and movies, and possibly a desire to get the best experience from them.

Re:Correlation or Causation

[DaVince21]

There are plenty of pirates who just "want stuff for free" though. Some sort of weird "sharing is caring" spirit which I really don't get (especially because sharing in this way means that you do NOT care if the companies go bankrupt over lost sales).

Re:Correlation or Causation

[blackest_k]

Companies going bankrupt because of lost sales doesn't occur, companies going bankrupt because they didn't have a good enough product at a reasonable price point does occur.

Piracy is probably a positive thing in that it helps popularise many products. A lost sale may be a lost sale but it may actually be a positive if it results in positive recommendations for that product.

It's where something is outed as not being really particularly high quality that sales suffer.

A poor quality album or film may well lose sales due to the honesty of people who pirated and said it was crap. Most game reviews for example are presented with a positive bias whatever generally.

You never get a film being advertised as a bit slow and boring with a weak script, although you can't deny you've watched films which were terrible. The highlights in previews are normally the best bits and don't prepare you for the reality of what your going to see.

Most retailers will take some losses from shop lifting , however the problem is the only sure way to stop these losses is to lock the doors and not let anyone in. Meaning no sales at all. You could perhaps organise things so that there is no way a customer could get to your products, however you then run the risk they will go to your competitor who doesn't treat the customers as thieves (at least not obviously).

Piracy really does tend to equal publicity which makes the vendor money. You can play around with law suits like the RIAA but its not working at all well since most people will not get sued. If the risk became too great good ole sneakernet would be used instead and if the product was poor not pirated at all.

Another thing that you should realise is that digital data is mostly entertainment, thats non essential and a cost easy to forgo. Make it too hard on your consumers and you won't have consumers people have less money now and will pay for essentials first.

Probably not a great time trying to make a living from entertaining people

25% can't be wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

25% are "pirates".

So 25% of the population are criminals and should be in jail?
Sounds like the law needs changing to me..

(Anonymous Dutchman)

Re:Economic downturn to blame

[mcvos]

After all, what's a dutchman (or woman) to do when they have the economy blues but hoist the Jolly Roger and go out for a good old pillage on the high seas.

The pride of our national history, the VOC made much of its early profits through piracy. It brought us our Golden Age. It makes sens to go back to those pragmatic mercantile principles, right?

Even our prime minister lauded the VOC mentality a few month ago. (And got criticised for it because that includes slave trade and colonialism, but nobody mentioned piracy at the time.)

Re:Correlation is not causation

[kitgerrits]

OK. I'll bite.

The article says that a lot of pirates are people that enjoy the content.
Sometimes, they even enjoy the content so much, they buy the official copy, just to inform the publisher that this formula works.

I'm one of them, I have piles of illegal movies and games and even bigger piles of CD's, DVD's and BD-ROMS of stuff I actually like)
Also, not all piracy is done because 'they want it for free'. If you want English subtitles in the Netherlands, you either have to import (illegal, won't play on DVD player) or download your movies, so I but the movie with dutch subs and download the one with English subs.

Oh, and yes, /sometimes/ it is worth the money to import (Ghost in the Shell, Evangelion), even if it costs >$75 to buy.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Correlation is not causation

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't get it right.

Why should people who like owning DVDs, Blurays and Games just buy stuff blindly ?

A lot of people I know download a movie first, and when they like it they buy a Bluray later on. I see this as a win-win for both sides.

Download statistics don't mean anything really.

Re:Correlation is not causation

[mcvos]

What is this article trying to say? That copyright infringement is good because the people doing it are actually also buying a lot of games?

No, it's saying that the industry is fighting the wrong fight. They're attacking their own customers.

That's bullshit. There is no correlation here, unless you studied the purchasing habits of a set group of people who couldn't pirate stuff for a year and they could the next year.

What the hell does that mean? If the study shows that people who buy more also download more, and people who download less also purchase less, than that's correlation. It doesn't necessarily say anything about causation, but the correlation is quite obvious.

Hardcore gamers buy a lot of games. If hardcore gamers also pirate a lot, then this is a disaster for people making hardcore games.

No. People buying lots of games are not a disaster for people who make those games. Those people finding a different hobby would be a disaster, though.

Put yourself in the position of someone making a game. If the guy who doesn't pay for your game buys a lot of CD's, that doesn't help pay your mortgage or buy your groceries.

People who don't buy your stuff don't pay your mortgage no matter what other stuff they do buy and whether or not they download your stuff illegally. Pirates don't matter. Customers do.

Everyone I know making games is moving to flash games that are ad-supported, console gaming, or doing MMO games.

Then you need to get acquainted with Brad Wardell from Stardock. He's the one who said "pirates don't matter", he's applied this to his single player PC games which don't have any copy protection, and sell very well. His strategy works because he focuses on pleasing his customers instead of chasing them away.

If people want the option to ever be playing single-player games, they need to stop assuming they can get them for free, and free-ride off the honest people who still open their wallet for decent entertainment.

And if companies want people to pay for their games, they need to stop assuming that they can hurt the play experience of honest, paying customers without chasing them towards cracked versions of the game that offer a superior experience.

It's a two-way street. Companies are trying to control their customers, but a free market simply doesn't work like that.

The other 55%

[Stroot]

Don't worry, I'm one of the other 55% Dutch people, the ninjas. We will beat those pesky pirates.

Re:The other 55%

[aproposofwhat]

Aye - those clogs are a bugger when trying to move silently.

Re:The other 55%

[DaVince21]

You're talking way too much to be a ninja.

Go figure.

[Anachragnome]

Amazing what a test drive can do for consumer confidence.

Re:Correlation is not causation

[zwei2stein]

I like how you call methodology of study bullshit while you come up paragraph later with something smelling similar.

Bad customer with piratey tendencies are better than someone that just pirates. They don't cause aditional costs and biz still gets gets at least some profit from them, and evnetually each company gets their share. Sure, geting that one game of yours pirated while they actually buy someone elses stuff sucks, but it works both ways.

It's a dup

[El_Muerte_TDS]

It was previously covered here:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/19/1440254

Re:It's a dup

[kkaltuu]

The article that you're referring only mentions TNO, a government subsidized company (The reason why TNO was founded was that the Dutch government felt that there had to be a independent research facility that could give unbiased reports). This IS the same study, lead by a consortium of SEO IViR and TNO. But, there are different conclusions to this, and the first article only mentions that piracy doesn't effect the economy. This article is about another conclusion.

Re:It's a dup

[Lunzo]

In other news 45% of slashdot stories are pirate copies.

And remember

[Freud]

downloading (only downloading, not uploading) is legal in The Netherlands.

Re:Correlation is not causation

[HungryHobo]

So by your logic if all a groups copyrighted work was suddenly available for download for free they'd have a massive dropoff in sales?
Sounds logical, I mean these guys went bankrupt as soon as they tried it.
http://www.youtube.com/user/MontyPython

Re:Economic downturn to blame

[Thanshin]

Even our prime minister lauded the VOC mentality a few month ago. (And got criticised for it because that includes slave trade and colonialism, but nobody mentioned piracy at the time.)

Oh, I don't follow current RIAA slang.

I'm lost with colonialism, but slave trade is surely "mailing pictures of people", right?

Meanwhile...

[Jane Q. Public]

94% of Dutch drivers who usually obey the speed limit admit exceeding it at least once per month. Obviously, the Dutch are a nation of scofflaws. The good part of that being of course that the scofflaws do obey the rules... most of the time.

In other words, the average speeder uses the road legally far more than the driver who only brings the car out of the garage to go to church on Sunday.

We should all be surprised by this, because the media tells us so. Please, everyone raise their eyebrows for the photograph.

Re:Meanwhile...

[Reziac]

Well, that explains the startled look most folks have on their mugshot... ;)

Re:Correlation is not causation

[Mascot]

Hardcore gamers buy a lot of games. If hardcore gamers also pirate a lot, then this is a disaster for people making hardcore games.

Unless you have the kind of data to back up your assumption that hardcore gamers would otherwise have bought *more* games, you just made one of them unfounded correlations yourself.

If people want the option to ever be playing single-player games, they need to stop assuming they can get them for free

Yep. Games like The Sims has clearly proven there's no room for commercially successful single player games. Or Bioshock. Or Sins of a Solar Empire. Or (insert list of umpteen non-MMO games that has topped the sales charts the pasts few years).

*Lots* of people, millions of them, buy games. Your points aren't invalid, but neither are they gospel.

I'll tell you what makes me buy games. Them being good. And the price/availability equation. Steam was good, until they switched to Euro at a 1:1 ratio with USD and jacked up their prices some 40% effectively. Now they've priced themselves out of my interest. There's only Impulse left. That's the only DRM I accept. If your game isn't on there, you generally won't get a sale from me unless you're offering independent DRM-free distribution of your own.

Well, in your case you won't either way. I tried hard to find one of your games to buy to support you when you announced dropping DRM. I just couldn't find one that even remotely interested me enough to part with money for it. That's not meant as a slam. You just haven't made anything to my taste yet.

The sad fact is, there's no getting away from piracy. All one can do is try to mitigate it. By offering quality, by not overloading it with ineffective and annoying DRM, by pricing it right, and by catering extra to the people that are able to prove they purchased the product.

If there still aren't enough sales to make it worthwhile, then that's it really. We'll be back to indie one-man-with-a-passion made games and will have noone to blame but ourselves. Though those games will undoubtedly top any AAA game in originality, so the culture of gaming will endure regardless.

It justifies

[camcorder]

Indeed that research justifies claims of the movie and music industry. Those downloading a copyrighted material illegally are prospective customers, and easier they can be able to get things free, less they would buy them. Not more.

There are always excuses for illegally downloading these stuff. Overpriced materials, willing to preview before buy, outdated media etc. But those are not valid excuses at least these days. You can *live* without listening to every single tune. You can *live* without watching every single movie. If you enjoy watching a movie, and if you enjoy listening to a tune, go buy it. Just like you enjoy eating snacks and need to buy them.

For sure you can be ideologically against policies of movie studios, or labels. Then boycot them by making their products less popular, not by illegally download their content. If you do you're one way or another both infringe laws and making those you're against good.

There're more liberal licenses for distributing copyrighted materials like Creative Commons. Instead support artists releasing content in such a way. But if you don't do that, nothing can be an excuse of infringing copyright of others.

Most responsible party in this long going problem is those distributing content. I blame those download illegal content less than those sharing this stuff. Distributing does not serve any purpose. As I said it does not serve your mission of protesting policies of the movie studios or music labels in case that's what you want in first place. It even helps their domination.

Harm of this illegal sharing of copyrighted material is very huge in developing countries. Their government and public don't understand importance of intellectual property. If developed countries did not have good protection of intellectual properties they would not be able to produce quality music, movies or even software. Developing countries don't give importance to this and at the end of day they don't/can't produce rival products with their own resources, they instead stay addicted to copyrighted products of others.

In my country, Turkey, illegal copying is rampant. And I'll give example not from soft copies, but hard copies, like books. Over here there're lots of universities giving education in English. But you hardly find original books written by professors of local universities. Almost all universities use textbooks from US and/or UK. I'm not talking about grad level courses, but basic physics, mathematics, biology etc. Since most of these books are photocopied by students, professors don't *waste* their time to produce more suitable materials to be used by the local universites and probably rest of the World. They can write better books for their own students. They can give more local examples and students would understand topics better. But students buy illegal copies and somehow manage to pass courses. If they instead complain about expensive books or authority enforce them not to use illegal copies and make them complain anyways, some local professor would produce cheaper and even better materials. Inevitably this not only harm education also make those educated people lazy.

Illegal copying is like using drugs. You don't foresee any problem eary times and even feel good about it. But eventually it harms your body and future.

Re:It justifies

[cosmocain]

Illegal copying is like using drugs.

i really can't see why this is modded funny.

Re:It justifies

[MadMidnightBomber]

Illegal copying is like using drugs. You don't foresee any problem eary times and even feel good about it. But eventually it harms your body and future.

I do very little copying, but I'm pretty sure, if it's harming your body, you're doing something very, very wrong.

Re:It justifies

[radja]

funny thing is... copying music and movies isn't illegal in the netherlands. the 'excuse' for legally downloading movies and music is that I want to see or hear it.

Re:It justifies

[radja]

actually, that's not legal...

Re:It justifies

[Ash-Fox]

So does doing drugs. Just because it's legal in Netherland doesn't make it good.

It isn't legal

Re:It justifies

[AndreR]

i really can't see why this is modded funny.

That would be because many here would laugh profusely at the notion that 'pirating' $80+ university textbooks is wrong because it discourages university teachers to write their own books.

What is wrong is to price knowledge so high and not subsidize it for students who can't afford $500 in textbooks.

I'm not offended when someone can't get the whole Britney Spears discography because it's too expensive, but it hurts me when many of my university colleagues want to study advanced physics or microelectronics and can't get the subject's textbooks because they're too bloody expensive. And it comforts me to know that they can 'pirate' the book, study and learn from it, and have the same opportunity to become great engineers as I, luckily, have.

Re:It justifies

[camcorder]

If nobody cared about copyright at all then motivation to write books would diminish and your colleagues wouldn't find any book to photocopy at first place. You're talking like those books are gospels. Some people spent valuable time creating them. And what makes them spending years to write/edit those books is their belief in copyright of these books are protected. Anyone can ask for funding for buying text books. Also universities have libraries to offer these books for those who can't afford them. And your colleagues are probably spending much more money elsewhere instead of spending it on books.

Price of knowledge is not the subject here. But even if it's, price of knowledge is much more than price of white paper. Again, you can *live* witout being a great engineer. And benefit you think from having a great engineer is less than cost of un-ethical engineer who justifies his wrong doings with biased excuses.

Re:It justifies

[AndreR]

This can be spun both ways, that I agree. Although I did say that books should be cheaper, I agree with you in the fact that producing a good textbook is expensive (in more ways than just money) and time-consuming, and they should be valued accordingly.

I do believe, however, that it is more valuable for us as a society to have this sort of knowledge-disseminating piracy, than to strongly enforce textbook copyrights. You can argue that without the monetary reward, no good books would be written in the first place, but I disagree, I don't believe that most people who write textbooks do it for the money.

The point that those students are spending much more money elsewhere is moot. Textbooks are obviously not a basic necessity. Should a student sacrifice two month of his social life for the sake of purchasing a new textbook? Which of them will benefit him the most throughout his life? What is worth more that a textbook, and what is worth less?

This is all relative, of course. You say that anyone can ask for funding to buy textbooks. Where? In America? Me, I'm studying in Portugal, so I'll speak of what I know. We have good universities here, but there are no funds for buying books, and the 3-5 copies in the library are hardly enough for the dozens of students who procure them every year.

Re:It justifies

[nightfire-unique]

How cute.

"Move over grandpa."

I'd wager a lot of money that people are going to find your post quaint and backwards in 50 years. "Intellectual property" laws are on their way out; they cannot survive in an age where copying information is inherent in human and computer activity. Either they will be repealed, or go unenforced.

Either way, attempting to paint information sharing as immoral is amusing at best.

Re:It justifies

[Dragonslicer]

I do very little copying, but I'm pretty sure, if it's harming your body, you're doing something very, very wrong.

Wait, where's the disc supposed to go then?

Re:It justifies

[swillden]

And I'll give example not from soft copies, but hard copies, like books. Over here there're lots of universities giving education in English. But you hardly find original books written by professors of local universities. Almost all universities use textbooks from US and/or UK. I'm not talking about grad level courses, but basic physics, mathematics, biology etc. Since most of these books are photocopied by students, professors don't *waste* their time to produce more suitable materials to be used by the local universites and probably rest of the World.

You picked a horrible example. I can't think of a worse one.

The idea that textbooks in basic subjects should have any kind of copyright limitations on them at all is both ridiculous and counterproductive, and the notion that students should fund them directly is ludicrous.

Professors who write textbooks don't make any money off of them, either in Turkey or in the US or the UK. What the authors make is a pittance. They do the work because they see a need for a better book, and it's good for their academic career to be known as the author of a widely-used book on the topic.

The people that make the money are the publishers, and it's a racket.

What we need to do for basic textbooks is that educational institutions (whether government, private, quasi-private or consortia of all of the above) should pay to have them written, formatted and their content placed in the public domain. Then publishers should take the content and print the hardcopies, selling them for whatever profit they can get in a competitive marketplace.

Re:It justifies

[Acer500]

Developing countries don't give importance to this and at the end of day they don't/can't produce rival products with their own resources, they instead stay addicted to copyrighted products of others.

I think you're selling yourself short there. My country, Uruguay, sells a lot of high-quality software (and its share of crap too, of course :) ), some of which is world-class (the 4GL language/generator Genexus is unmatched in my experience, though still buggy).

Locally-produced software exports account for 3% of our GDP, which is an amazing figure :) .

Re:Economic downturn to blame

[b4upoo]

We could bring back the good old days by insisting upon our legal and moral right to sell opium to the people of China. There's more than one way to beat down the Chinese and make money while doing it.

Piracy can be a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I have pirated games before myself to see if they felt worth the money, and if the game seemed good while playing into it, I went out and bought it, and if the game sucked, well, I'd uninstall it then.

Plain and simple.

Because some people don't feel like spending $50 on a game and going "This is crap." after playing it for a few minutes, because stores won't take it back and refund their money.

Re:Correlation is not causation

[gsslay]

Sometimes, they even enjoy the content so much, they buy the official copy, just to inform the publisher that this formula works.

Interesting. Do you have any evidence of this bizarre method of communication? Perhaps people who really, really enjoy the content go out and buy it twice, just to inform the publisher? Because, of course, the publisher gets this message back in an encoded signal from your credit card.

People buy the official copy for one reason; they want the higher quality and the added value of the genuine packaging and associated content. As with all market forces, individuals are largely motivated by self-interest. They are not motivated by a desire to support the 'formula' and to suggest they are is laughable.

And correlation is not causation. Fact. How often is this pointed out on slashdot?

Re:Correlation is not causation

[icebraining]

I don't download much, but one of the things I do download is TV series which don't exist with portuguese subtitles yet. There are groups of volunteers who subtitle episodes two to three days from the original broadcast (in the US). So those downloads actually give me a service many months before the "official" retailers.

Re:We pay music tax, so we get free music download

[johanw]

[quote]Since us dutch pay a tax on empty cd's and dvd's[/quote] Did noone tell you to buy in Germany? See www.opus.nl. Besides, a lot of traders sell them (illegally) tax-free. I buy DVD's in a shop for EUR 22,50 per 100, Opus is cheaper but I don't pay delivery costs and I can just go to the shop when I need them and don't have to wait. And I'm doing nothing illegal, how am I supposed to know that price is even lower than the tax?

I like the message, but...

[drunkenoafoffofb3ta]

Instinctively, I don't trust the interpretation of the stats.

Perhaps the young Dutch comprise proportionately more of the downloaders. Young Dutch also like new music. Young Dutch are more likely to buy music than older Dutch, who have their CD and LP collection and feel no need to buy much more.

Thus you get your result. It doesn't necessarily mean that piracy leads to buying more stuff legitimately.

Re:I like the message, but...

[rts008]

So, then your saying piracy makes you younger?

*hurriedly starts up Ktorrent*

Awesome!

[TokyoMoD]

It's great to be a Pirate an 45% of ppl know it is!

Re:Correlation is not causation

[csteinle]

Also, not all piracy is done because 'they want it for free'. If you want English subtitles in the Netherlands, you either have to import (illegal, won't play on DVD player) or download your movies, so I but the movie with dutch subs and download the one with English subs.

play.com will ship UK versions EU wide. Both the Netherlands and the UK are Region 2. That'll save you from buying the Dutch one at all.

Re:Correlation is not causation

[Jedi Alec]

They are not motivated by a desire to support the 'formula' and to suggest they are is laughable.

Thank you! Never again will I have to buy anything from Stardock because I support their formula! From now on I'll treat their products just the same as all the crap EA spews forth which isn't worth paying for unless you know for sure it actually bloody works.

I buy the official product when it is *convenient*, because like a lot of people I am a lazy bastard. If you make it easy for me to purchase, install and use your product from the comfort of my chair, then I will do so. If you put a gazillion hurdles in my path, then I will simply go to the pirate bay and get it there. Wrong/unethical/illegal/despicable? Perhaps. Reality? Very much so.

Re:Correlation is not causation

[kitgerrits]

Indeed, and I have piles of Play DVD's :-)
Unfortunately, they don't carry as much Japanese and French movies/series as I would like.

Play actually provides the convenience Jedi_Alec seems to want, except you have to rely on your local postal company for delivery (some things get lost in transit).

They do, however try to keep you happy you if something does get lost.

Re:Correlation is not causation

[kitgerrits]

To make matters worse:
I have, in fact bought several CD's twice.
Mostly because the original got lost or I wore out the CD (Car CD player).

I can't tell you how many Hitchhiker's guides I have bought by now, only to be given away at birthdays and other special events.
OK, I accidentally bought FarCry twice, but it was still worth it.

Having bought crap in my early years because of merchandising (T2 game?), I now prefer to try a game before I buy it.
That still means I will buy a game if I like it. I am willing to spend $40 on a good game, upto $60 for gaming nirvana.
I was /not/ willing to spend $75 on Unreal Tournament III, so I waited until it hit the $60 mark.

And it does work, sometimes.
The recording industry has realized people will not buy a CD if it only has 3 decent songs on it.

Re:Economic downturn to blame

[hobbit]

I'd have thought that "slave trade" would be what the RIAA would like you to think is equivalent to what you're doing to the poor, struggling artists.

And when some new-fangled power (such as the internet) comes along and starts trying to ride roughshod over the way things have always been done -- i.e., trying to cut the music industry out of its rightful share of the money -- that would be colonialism.

Re:Correlation is not causation

[DMalic]

You're pretty dumb. Piracy is so easy that ethics are the only real reason *not* to. The added value and packaging really aren't worth much to most people. "People buy the official copy for one reason; they want the higher quality and the added value of the genuine packaging and associated content." The feeling of supporting the artist counts for something. I've plopped down cash on Nettwerk Records, Trent Reznor's stuff, and emusic for that reason alone.

Consumers are treated like thieves

[tarkin]

Maybe it's because of in Belgium and Holland DVD are regularly prefixed with a clip - 2 to 3 minutes long - that warns that downloading or buying copied DVDs is illegal.

You can't skip these warnings, and very often when the end credits are done you get another text-only warning in 200 languages you can't skip either. And don't get me started on trailers for other movies before DVD menu's!

I bought the stupid DVDs, please don't annoy me with not skippable content and you-are-a-thieve warnings!
Or maybe it's because they slap 'special limited 100 disc directors _gut_ edition' on every release?

Re:Consumers are treated like thieves

[WoollyMittens]

"that warns that downloading or buying copied DVDs is illegal." On the Dutch version this would be a blatant lie as copying media for your own use is perfectly legal here.

Re:Correlation is not causation

[Animaether]

fwiw, I've got about 180 DVDs and I have yet to have one that did not have English subtitles for the main feature. Most of them in the form of 'English (for the hard of hearing)' subs. It is true, however, that commentaries and the like often lack English subtitles and you're stuck with a selection of, usually, Dutch or French... German, Turkish, Spanish if you're 'lucky'.

But I am now deeply curious which movies GP had wanted to buy and found to only have Dutch subtitles. Even the plethora of Dutch DVDs I have -have- English subtitle options.

A much better reason to download is to be done with the thing... no need for a special player that ignores the unskippable bits, no need to rip the DVD yourself to your media player machine, etc. Just grab the release, call it a day - you still have the DVD if you want to get at the extras / want a higher quality.

Two words:

[MRe_nl]

Piet Hein.

Re:Two words:

[Ghost Hedgehog]

So we should only pirate music and movies from countries we are at war with?

Wow.

[The Cisco Kid]

I'd have never thought that many Dutch went out on the sea and forcibly seized ships and stole their cargo. Seems rather high, are you sure you got your numbers right? Or perhaps you are using the wrong word?

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy

Re:Wow.

[WoollyMittens]

Actually... Since most people think that the Netherlands is a small island of the coast of Somalia, I think the word piracy is fitting.

Bloody hell

[Anonymous Coward]

"Patronage only worked because the huge wealth inequalities at the time meant that some - usually kings, nobles and churchmen - had loads of money to spend and wanted to show off to others of their class."

And what is the average wealth of the top 10%? Now compare with the bottom 50%.

THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TODAY!!!!

It's just that instead of royalty, we have the Gates institution, the Bushes, the Van De Bildts (sp?), etc.

No fucking difference except they don't have to wear a fucking crown on their heads or raise an army.

Re:Bloody hell

[Hognoxious]

And how poor were the bottom 50% then compared to the bottom 50% now?

Re:Bloody hell

[lee1026]

Consider the following: a single family can spend a large portion of their entire nations gdp by themselves in those days. Bill Gates don't spend anywhere near a percentage of GDP.

Re:Bloody hell

[Arterion]

I don't think there was such a concept as GDP back then. The world was significantly less international back then. It was mostly about trying to grow enough food to survive.

Re:Bloody hell

[Arterion]

Relatively about the same, if not poorer. That is to say, the disparity between what wealth can do now vs. what wealth could do then is HUGE.

In other words "luxury" now is something quite more exorbitant than it was then.

I mean, a King usually had a castle or two, that was built long ago and he inherited. Bill Gates could afford to have dozens and dozens of castles built on short order. He could have any type of medical procedure done. He could probably fly to the moon pick up some rocks, and fly them back if he wanted to. Even the kings of old didn't have that kind of wealth.

And I think you overestimate that bottom 50%. It's basically the same story: they have just enough income or resources to work everyday. Beyond that, they have precious little to spend on entertainment or personal enrichment, very little freedom to do anything beyond being tied down to their jobs. Not much different than a modern-day serfdom.

Re:Bloody hell

[Hognoxious]

Relative poverty is nonesense. It's having a black & white 14" TV (remember those) when someone else has a 36" plasma.

I don't see people in rags working in the fieds from dusk till dawn, going home to hovels and going to sleep hungry before repeating the same thing tomorrow.

IANAL but I am Dutch

[WoollyMittens]

According to the Dutch "Authors Law" of 1912, copying of books, music and movies for your own personal use and study is legal. It was decided that it also applies to downloads.

Most interestin conclusion: 100M loss, 200M profit

[CAPSLOCK2000]

The most interesting conclusion of this report has been left out of the summary.

The cost of downloading to society as a whole is estimated at 100 milion euros in 2008.

The profit (in cultural en social well-being) is estimated at 200 million euros.

Even though some suffer (e.g. the music industry), society as a whole makes a profit.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Correlation is not causation

[MrNemesis]

I could be wrong, but aren't region-free DVD players not only easy to come by, but actively encouraged in europe? Every time I've seen one for sale (e.g. take this example from Amazon, something like number 6 in a search for "multi region dvd player" http://www.amazon.co.uk/Philips-DVP5980-Multi-region-capable-Upscaling/dp/B000Q7ZCO6/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1233234235&sr=8-4 with the sequence in the first review) there's usually always been information provided to show you how to unlock the firmware. I'd assume that if it was horribly illegal, people like Amazon would take it down for fear of lawsuits...?

Anecdotally, I've also seen lots of DVD players bollocks up (freezes, stuttering, unreasonably long layer transitions) when region codes are enabled, but start working perfectly once the region-free hack has been applied - almost certainly crappy region protection firmware, but to the end user the cause is irrelevant. My parents cheap-ass DVD player even granted you access to the skip buttons during those interminably irritating "You've just bought this legitimate DVD... NOW DON'T BUY ANY PIRATE ONES YOU FILTHY THIEVING SCUM" and "Seeing as you bought this movie, we thought we'd like to remind you that this isn't the only DVD in the world and other films actually exist AND WE FEEL SO STRONGLY ABOUT THIS WE'RE GOING TO TELL YOU EVERY TIME YOU SETTLE DOWN TO WATCH A FILM" intros. My parents aren't techies, but had the nouse to google the region free sequence for it on their own simply because they wanted a way to skip all that shite.

Plus, buying other-region DVD is similarly easy in the UK (and I assume the rest of europe), if it wasn't I wouldn't buy half as much stuff as I do - there's craploads of stuff that has never been released in region 2 and I don't see why I or anyone else should have some idiotically myopic copyright lobbyist label me a criminal for trying to buy stuff.

Disclaimer: when I was a penniless student, I downloaded all sorts of stuff. Now I have a job, I've not downloaded anything illegally for years, including all the stuff I downloaded. Which included loads of things I wouldn't otherwise have watched.

I'd be interested to hear how easy it is to get hold of region free players in the US and elsewhere.

It's time people noticed

[davecb]

Back when 286s were bleeding-edge technology, my employer noticed that locked or gelded software didn't sell. They sold their product (a competitor to Lotus 1-2-3) without any locks, and found that businesses who borrowed copies then tended to call us us and but copied. So we worked with the local high schools and colleges to maximize the "trying".

--dave

Re:It's time people noticed

[Acer500]

Back when 286s were bleeding-edge technology, my employer noticed that locked or gelded software didn't sell. They sold their product (a competitor to Lotus 1-2-3) without any locks, and found that businesses who borrowed copies then tended to call us us and but copied.

My former employer had a huge success bundling their accounting software with the hardware they sold (Hardware division sold cheap and low margin, Software division raked in the profit).

So many small companies bought support and upgrades from them, I'm amazed they managed to lose money even so (well they did some very boneheaded business decisions, losing tons of money in Brazil and Venezuela).

Re:It's time people noticed

[davecb]

sorry, s/but/buy/

Re:Most interestin conclusion: 100M loss, 200M pro

[davecb]

Do we have a estimate for the corresponding profit to the music industry? If the loass was on the order of 50%, it would be well within the range a distributor would accept for getting penetration.

--dave

Re:Correlation is not causation

[kitgerrits]

About the Netherlands:
Yes, they are reasonably easy to come by.
No, it is /not legal/ to sell a multi-region DVD player off the shelf. (makers tend to have their DVD license revoked)
Most stores will 'reprogram' it for a reasonable price.

Most brand-name players will still honor the do-not-skip setting, even if they are set to multi-region.

Unfortunately, my PS3 is single-region, so I still have to keep a dedicated DVD player around...

In other words

[Trevin]

"About 25 percent of the Dutch population downloaded hacked and pirated DVDs, games, and music ..."

"... illegal downloaders representing 45 percent of consumers who purchase content legally"

This tells me that at least 44% of the Dutch population doesn't purchase DVDs, games, or music. That's assuming that all downloaders also purchase. If nearly all downloaders don't purchase, then anywhere up to 99.9% of the population isn't buying any of it.

Does that say something about the quality of commercial products?

Legal in Europe

[DrYak]

Example, There is NO reason why we shouldn't be able to buy prebuilt little multimedia servers designed to let us rip our CDs and movies and make them available anywhere in our homes. No more dealing with discs, the kids can watch what they want while the adults watch their own movies, etc. It would be very nice. But we can't have anything like that because the IP "holders" say you only have rights to play the plastic. So if the little bit of plastic isn't there than you can't watch it.

Well the situation is different in Europe :
You bought the little plastic thingie, you own the little platic thingie and you might do whatever you see fit with it, as long as you don't distribute the content without obtaining a license for it (or without the distribution case being one of the exceptions).

If you want to put it on a server (for you own use that's it - not for the whole 'net), you are free to do it.

Certain more recent laws like in Switzerland, even explicitely state that format shifting is allowed when needed for technical reason (Your iPod doesn't have a slot for plastic thingies. You're authorized by law to re-encode the music into a iPod-friendly format) and states that DRM and other access-restriction systems can legally be circumvented in order to achieve such format shifting (or making other copies authorized among the exception to copyright law).

misleading stats

[goombah99]

so they seem to be empahsizing that people who dowload more buy more. This is BS.

The pool people can be divided into three piles:
those who:
1) acquire a lot of music
2) acquire just a little
3) acquire none.

The first two piles of people contain pirates and non-pirates. The third pile is strictly non-pirates.

thus even if the first two piles of people were equally divided between pirates and non-pirates, then the third pile would severely dillute the non-pirates per capita purchase rates.

to this non-pirates buy 25% less statistic is gibberish signifying nothing.

ZOMG! Tell me it ain't so!

[kimvette]

The whole try before you buy thing works? No sh*t! I'd never have guessed! That's all I ever used Napster for, and used suprnova (before it went bust) for that (and timeshifting tv episodes) as well. I'd download something and if I liked it, I'd go out and buy the DVD or buy it from amazon.

Now I don't download anything but "unreleased" tracks, and MST3K episodes when I can find them (the MST3K credits encourage sharing copies!). I still buy DVDs (the MPAA has not been quite as unreasonable as the RIAA) but only very rarely buy CDs.

Want to entice people who wouldn't otherwise buy, to buy? Flood P2P networks with low-resolution 320x240 (or equivalent widescreen) format videos of your entire catalog. Include ads for the DVD and blu-ray versions - at the beginning, halfway through, and the end. Make the ads relatively unobtrusive so you don't suffer from backlash (people's removing the ads and reposting the videos). Then, you're getting advertising for very, very little cost (how much bandwidth does running a single seed share and a torrent tracker take anyway?), getting people interested in buying your back catalog, or at worst case, at least getting them interested in your other product offerings (be it other back catalog items or maybe seeing your future releases on the big screen).

Gee, really?

[Maury Markowitz]

> The average [Dutch] downloader buys more DVDs, music, and games than people who never download

BREAKING NEWS: old people who don't listen to rock music don't buy rock music!

NEWS FLASH: people who don't watch television don't buy new televisions!

FLASH TRAFFIC: people who listen to music pirate it AND buy it too

Duh. The fact that you download music puts you into the portion of the population that listens to music. People who listen to music generally buy it too. If anyone's trying to conclude that piracy has positive benefits, this study absolutely does not say that.

Maury

We bought our books. And they're still UK/US

[PMBjornerud]

Almost all universities use textbooks from US and/or UK. I'm not talking about grad level courses, but basic physics, mathematics, biology etc. Since most of these books are photocopied by students, professors don't *waste* their time to produce more suitable materials to be used by the local universites and probably rest of the World.

Hi, I'm from Norway and I bought every single textbook. Every single one with proper copyright. There is no copying or photocopies.

The books are still from the UK/US.

Maybe we don't NEED a bunch of professors spending their time writing almost identical books?

i'm glad to see this study

[the_wesman]

i buy a lot of CDs - on average, one a week for the past 6 years - I also download a lot of music - when I download something I like, I almost always buy it on CD (or sometimes LP) - when I dowload something I don't like, I delete it - if it's just OK, I may keep it around but probably rarely listen to it, since I tend to prefer music that I like (?)

I use downloads as a way to try new music on my own timetable - I don't listen to the radio or watch MTV (does MTV even still show videos?) so I really hear about things mostly through word of mouth

so, yeah, I download crap, but I also give a fuckton of money to the record companies and rarely listen to the stuff that I don't own on some physical format - sounds like a win for the record companies

Re:Correlation is not causation

[cliffski]

hey genius. Lets see you try that with a product that hasn't already benefited from millions of dollars of advertising under a non-piracy environment for 30 years.
ready..... go!!!!!!!!!

Re:Correlation is not causation

[cliffski]

one man indie game devs have rent to pay too. I am one. Thats the whole point.

And you buy games if they are good. Cool. great. So are you suggesting that before piracy you deliberately bought bad games?

Its easy to suggest a game isnt good enough to buy once you've grabbed it free and played it all weekend.

Re:Correlation is not causation

[OfficeSupplySamurai]

Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog

http://www.hulu.com/watch/28343/dr-horribles-sing-along-blog

Re:Economic downturn to blame

[Ghost Hedgehog]

Slave trade and piracy was the WIC (West India Company), and not the VOC (East India Company).

Pirating stuff you own

[SoTerrified]

Sounds like I'm not the only person who pirates stuff they own. I personally have purchased, on CD, the complete works of Pink Floyd. However, I have gone to pirate sites to download the ripped versions of all that music so I can play them on my home server, on my digital music player, etc. Recently, I had a bunch of friends over for a movie night. Even though I owned the DVDs we were going to watch, I went to a pirate site and downloaded them all. (Yes, I could've ripped them myself, but it's often easier to just download them.) Why? No fiddling with disk swapping. Because it's just annoying to sit thru the FBI warning, wait for the menu to load up, etc. I wouldn't have to pirate at all if there was a way to just skip those bits, but with DRM, there isn't. I know for a fact the RIAA counts me as a 'pirate' and a 'lost sale'. But come on over sometime. I'll show you the spot on my shelf with all my Pink Floyd CDs. I'll lead you over to my LotR collectors editions. Then I'll let you explain to me how I can steal something I already own.

"Content" NOT a buzzword

[multimediavt]

Nothing is being "contained".

Really? So, all those video frames are just appearing out of nowhere?

I would agree with you if you were correct, but you're not. "Content" is not a buzzword. The use of the word to describe "the things that are held or included in something" (OED definition) has been accepted for centuries. Books contain a "Table of Contents". Ingredients used in foods, materials, or other conglomerated items are called contents.

So, yes, something is contained within the digital file that is being shared, whether that is text, audio, video, etc. So it is CONTENT!

Re:"Content" NOT a buzzword

[kdemetter]

actually , a file only contains bytes.

A program can convert those bytes to content , like text , audio ,video , which you can expierence with the hardware.

Re:"Content" NOT a buzzword

[MasterOfDisaster]

actually, a book only contains ink and paper. It requires an operator with years of experience "reading" books to convert that ink and paper into content like words, a story or a poem.

Re:"Content" NOT a buzzword

[multimediavt]

Ok, you are not grasping reality here. So, those bytes contained in a file are not content? That's what you just said. You said the bytes are converted to content, but that makes no sense. What is correct is that the byte content of the file is interpreted as text, audio, video, etc. by the hardware AND software. It's still CONTENT. It starts as analog content, gets encoded as digital bits (that form bytes) and becomes digital content. The file in digital form contains the same content as the analog original encoded as digital bits that are contained in said file. Still content!

mod parent up

[catbertscousin]

Yeesh, don't they teach geography any more?

If they are downloaders...

[rgviza]

...they aren't part of the media buying population now are they ;) And pirates *sell* illegally copied stuff. People that don't steal and sell, but simply illegally download really aren't pirates, they are the beneficiaries of copyright violation perpetrated by the person they downloaded from. Pirates are in it for profit.

-Viz

screw that!

[commodoresloat]

Pot's legal in California now, too, and here I don't have to put up with all those Dutch people!

Re:screw that!

[adminstring]

If only California could find a way to keep the Federal government goons out of their state, their laws wouldn't be subverted.

Re:Correlation is not causation

[Mascot]

You seem to be having some issues that precludes you from rational discussion on this topic.

Your response doesn't really address anything I wrote. The one attempt you made (and that's being extremely accommodating), first involved you imagining me saying something I did not. This reply from you only makes you come across as whining about how unfair the world is.

I realize the issue is one you feel strongly about, but snap out of it. You're an adult. If you're going to bother responding at all, put a shred of effort into it. You're British and your grammar and spelling is worse than mine, for crying out loud. That's just lazy.

jurisprudence

[thtrgremlin]

Just because the RIAA is able to buy its way into congress doesn't mean that the laws it writes are not subject to jurisprudence.

I believe in the rule of law and do not give 'god-like' status to the government in my mind, or in my obedience to it.

Truth is not a democracy.

The content industry has spread lies and fears based on dubious hypotheticals. Now that it turns out that either they were totally talking out their ass, or had an ulterior motive. This should challenge the system to change, as it is an obligation of politicians and people of a republic.

But given that these multi-billion dollar companies likely didn't get where they are by being stupid, looking at the "real" threat of of a healthy commons, and recognizing the roots of the constitution where it says, "Congress shall have the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries", and compare it to what is going on in our legal system today...

...there are people that are very angry. And they should be.

Why do lecturers recommend books to buy?

[troll8901]

Maybe we don't NEED a bunch of professors spending their time writing almost identical books?

This scenario can be seen from another angle too.

How many percent of your books do you actually use?

I, too, took a degree in Australia. Bought all books. I used at most 5% of the books (almost all from the USA), and at least 30% of my lecture notes (produced by local lecturers).

Why do lecturers recommend books?

I think we do NEED a bunch of professors to spend their time writing almost identical books, released under CREATIVE COMMONS, so that all universities can use ... and students can share cheaply.

How do we stop universities/colleagues from having tie-ups with publishing houses?

Re:Correlation is not causation

[JonasH]

all a groups copyrighted work was suddenly available for download for free

I keep seeing this mentioned, yet Youtube only holds 47 shortish Monty Python clips. Where can I see the rest of their stuff then? Do people simply not care, and just assume that everyone else is right when they say that MP put all their stuff online?

45%? Sure.

[DaVince21]

I'd believe it when they say that 45% of the Dutch are pirating, considering how easy-going my friends can be about pirating.