Slashdot Mirror
Fighting For Downloaders' Hearts and Minds
iateyourcookies writes "As opposed to enforcement which usually makes the headlines, The BBC is running an article called Inside A Downloader's Head which looks at the film and music industries' attempts to prevent copyright infringement. It details some of the campaigns, their rationale, controversy surrounding them and notes that 'there are plenty, even among the young, who can be eloquent about why they believe illegal downloading is not wrong. These can include everything from what they see as the unacceptable "control freakery" of DRM and regional coding, to overcharging and exploitation of the very artists the music industry claims to protect.' However, PR company for the industry Blue Rubicon attests that 'campaigns can change hearts and minds... If you do them right you can make a material impact on people's behaviour.'"
The article seems filled with examples of fuzzy logic. For example, it discusses how many "bad guys" force illegal immigrants/migrants to sell pirated DVDs on the street, thus showing an example of how innocent foreigners are harmed by the trade in illegal software/media. However... isn't this better than them being forced into being drug mules or prostitutes? Shouldn't they be trying to clarify that morality != legality rather than muddling the issue?
I suppose it's better than RIAA's tactics, but the claims of reducing piracy by 5% seem tenuous at best.
Signatures are the new names.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)
"Resistance" also served as part of Thoreau's metaphor which compared the government to a machine, and said that when the machine was working injustice it was the duty of conscientious citizens to be "a counter friction" - that is, a resistance - "to stop the machine."
---
Now, the current length for copyright seems to be 50 years or more after the death of an author. Are you fucking kidding me? How the hell is that limited in any way? The person has been dead for 49 years and his/her work still isn't public domain? What is that crap?
The copyright should be date of publication + 20 years and I don't care if the author is a person or a corporation, nor do I care if the art in question is a song, a tune, a movie, a videogame, a tv show, a book, whatever.
If it was published or released before 1989 then it should be public domain, no exceptions.
In fact, the governments should have web servers so that its citizens can go download the now-public-domain things for free, in open or non-proprietary formats.
It seems the BBC has forgotten about the last time it forgot that sharing is not a crime! : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4758636.stm
'First though, an apology. File sharing is not theft. It has never been theft. Anyone who says it is theft is wrong and has unthinkingly absorbed too many Recording Industry Association of America press releases. We know that script line was wrong. It was a mistake. We're very, very sorry.'
Not sorry enough to remember...
I just ask myself: Would I have purchased this? If the answer's no I don't feel any wrong was done to the copyright holder.
But how can you trust the answers of a known pirate?!
The enemies of Democracy are
You are guilty of non-commercial copyright violation. Not theft.
For a more sophisticated response which has nothing to do with how control-freaky DRM is, or how much artists do or don't deserve:
http://www.piratpartiet.se/wiki/Why_We_Are_Right
As long as the basic premise fails to shift from the idea that information is property, we will keep running into an ideological wall.
Or they'll just keep pirating because now it's even easier.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Not really. Information only wants to be cheap enough, and that includes transaction costs.
I don't watch that many films, but when I do, my requirements are as follows: I don't want to decide early on what I want to watch (ideally, I want to make up my mind at dinner, and watch it after the coffee), I don't want to spend more time on getting what I want then the time spent deciding what to see (i.e. buh-bye shop), and I want to be able to have at least two alternatives for the evening, in case I get bored with my first choice.
So, in my heart and mind the situation looks like this:
(a) I can download legally: There is little choice in services, they have various requirements for software (meaning it is limited to OS and browser I don't use), they have ridiculously little choice, half of that without language support I require and the price for what is available is also kind of high (a movie download cost about $20-ish last I bothered to check).
(b) I can downloading illegally: I can choose OS and player as I see fit, the availability of content is unsurpassed, even rare films, which will never make it legally here, or have been out of commercial circulation for decades are available; and there is usually someone helpful who has provided subtitles in my language, and in the language of the significant other, for even the weirdest movie and language. besides, it is really fast.
So, again, why should I bother with the "legal" downloads? Why should I put up with crappy customer service? Just because someone bribed some politico types and bought themselves a monopoly? It isn't like the "legal" provider cannot do for me for the same $20 what any private tracker does for free. If they would, I'd be happy to subscribe. I'd be even happier to watch for $5, or (less happy probably) for a fixed monthly subscription of sorts.
It is so simple to win my heart and mind, that I am at a huge loss as to why it is still unwon. The problem isn't it is hard. The problem is no one wants to win me. Well, if you suck, I'll damn right go where they treat me better.
well, about the "download a car" thing.. maybe someday, with rapid prototyping. of course, that'd just mean we get the same debate all over again.. with the odds stacked even more against us since we'd actually be saving quite a lot doing so.
exactly the same debate, even, since it'd also open up the possibility for geeks without a factory of their own to design their own car. does this remind anyone of how open source gets criticized?
Interesting analysis. One problem with it is that much of the "payment" demanded for digital goods is not actually directly linked to the labor used to produce it. A lot of the resistance to paying for music would go away, if the people paying were confident that a) the money was going to the people who created the music, and b) it was a "fair" payment for that music. Most people don't mind if Paul McCartney makes a billion dollars, but much of the music industry is designed to siphon money away from the artists and distribute it to parasites.
In the past, people couldn't do anything about that, it was buy an LP/CD or nothing. Now consumers have choices, and they'd rather go to a lot of trouble to download for free, than pay $.99 for a song where $.01 goes to the actual artists.
I do infringe copyright.
However, when I do it, it is not because of price or laziness, but because the retarded media and software companies try very hard not to make money:
Corporate FAQ:
Q- I would like to buy this movie.
A- Sorry you cannot watch this in your region. Of course we are never going to sell our invaluable distribution rights to anyone or we will do but only if he just sits on them.
Q- Hey you are broadcasting it online for free with ads, I want to watch it!
A- Sorry, but read above and fuck off damn foreigner.
Q- Hey I remember that game, I used to play it 20 years ago, it was great, but my console broke and I threw my copy away. I would buy it again.
A- Sorry we don't sell that anymore, though luck. Of course if you manage to find a copy don't redistribute it to other retards or we will sue your ass off.
You are mistaken, of course. You are merely trying to pretend that your misrepresentation of the situation is somehow more enlightened. You know this. Your rebuttal is childish and disingenuous because you are calling names and deliberately misrepresenting the key elements of the situation.
The poster is quite capable of understanding events in a purely abstract form. Better than you (if we are to take your comments at face-value...though in giving you the benefit of the doubt we shall not do so).
The poster is not ignoring the labor that went into producing digital content. But what you are ignoring, and what the poster is not ignoring, is that once the good exists it is abundant (can be reproduced infinitely at zero cost to both the producer and the recipient). While it is still true that labor was involved, this abundance changes the moral and economic landscape, and your attempt at arguing otherwise is completely empty.
Honestly, where you lack solid arguments you resort to insult. That is a technique appropriate to pre-adolescents.
Theft has a precise legal definition. It is a crime. Copyright infringement also has a precise legal definition, and it is also illegal. But the two are not the same thing. If you don't believe me, ask the American supreme court, who ruled that they are not the same thing.
When you say "something was indeed stolen" you are clearly speaking allegorically. If something was "indeed stolen" in a concrete sense, then the rightful owner would be lacking something he previously had, which (in this case) he clearly does not. This is not a matter of abstract vs concrete understanding, but of simple semantics. The word "theft" has a definition, the act of copyright infringement does not fit that definition, and that's it. The act of copyright infringement, while illegal and (in your opinion) morally wrong, is merely analogous to stealing, at best.
So why are you so insistent that it is identical to theft, when it clearly is not theft? My best guess is because people, in general, already agree that theft is morally wrong (and economically harmful), whereas there is much heated debate over whether copyright infringement is morally wrong (or economically harmful). If you cannot directly demonstrate the moral wrongness and economical harm of copyright infringement, you will find it much easier to insist that it is identical to something else which is clearly and obviously morally wrong and economically harmful. And, in your specific case, your inability to demonstrate this (false) identity in a clear and unambiguous way drives you to just accuse the person of being dim-witted and immature for not already agreeing with you. Don't be surprised with intelligent people find your arguments unconvincing.
To quote you: "piracy of easily copyable items like digital media only involves not paying for the labor that went into producing the good"
Yes. Agreed. Copyright infringement involves failing to pay for the labor that went into producing the good. However, this failing to pay for labor is not what makes theft theft. It may be what makes copyright infringement illegal, and it may even be what makes it morally wrong (provided you can produce a convincing case), but it does not make copyright infringement theft. Theft is still precicely defined as requiring the deprivation of the rightful owner of access to something that is his, which in this case is not happening.
Are you honestly unable to understand this simple and obvious difference between the two cases? Your vocabulary usage suggests that you are intelligent enough to understand that words have definitions, and that when something doesn't match that definition then the word doesn't apply. I know it is unfitting for me to presume to know for sure what you do and do not understand, but this concept is so simple, and you seem reasonably intelligent, so my inference is that y
2. You are not entitled to be paid for every little bit of "labor" you do.. first you have to find a buyer.
What if that leads the market to conclude that all labor that produces bits and bytes is not worth enough to pay a living wage?
Here's hoping someone is browsing at -1, my karma is buried in the mud.
And how do you get new movies, or movies that are unavailable in your area? Movies you're only likely to watch once? It seems that GP is not discussing getting movies in general, but comparing online "offerings".
I'd say he's got a point, even if he's being somewhat blunt.
Let's say I buy a cookbook. I really like one of the recipes and I pass it on to a friend. Is that as bad as downloading music? Is it worse than quoting a passage from a book in a paper I write for school? Is it worse than recording songs off the radio? Is it worse than recording a TV show so you can watch it later? If I buy a cd for my kid and he has a copy on his computer when he moves out did he just steal it? All these points are moot because the recording industry only cares that they might be leaving some money on the table and they'll spend a lot of coin on lawyers to prove it.
Show me a cd where the majority of the proceeds actually go to the artist and I'll show you a cd I would consider buying (or that I've already bought).
Just because the protection doesn't work, to the point where you don't even notice it, doesn't mean there is none.
Could be an interesting defense in a DMCA trial. "Your honor, I didn't know it was copy protected at all, I looked really hard but couldn't find any way this was protected. Encrypted? Ummm... Every file format has a certain format, there was no way I could see that there was some sort of encryption on top of it..."
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
... uses the word 'pirate' in a sentence, replace it with 'amateur librarian'. You now know how pirates think, if only subconsciously.
We can spend the next few decades trying to recreate the scarcity of information. Seriously, we can. There is no magical reason why copyright laws have to get more liberal, or that the rent seeking industries of the world will start producing things that people are willing to pay for, or that the government will 'get' file sharing as the baby boomers are replaced by people that have been trading information since the mid 90's.
This won't put humpty dumpty back together. Everyone has their own printing press/itunes store/app store, and has had one since end of the last century. The incredible utility of having computers that can run whatever software a user wants will not be dulled. A business model based on scarcity that used to exist *will* fail. As in the flunky working for $big_media_conglomerate that says 'hai guise wii can prevent people from steeling are stuff bi suing people and passing laws to make p2p moar eleegal' is wasting everyone's time and money.
There is no scarcity of information. This is the point of the Internet. Build a business around the artificial creation of scarcity at your job's peril.
I completely agree that 99% of DRM breaks products and harms consumer experience (yes I like how Steam works, no I don't want to get into that debate right now). I am curious though: would you be so opposed to it if copyright was reasonable and lasted 7 years? You would then have the option of buying the flawed product to start using it now, or waiting for copyright to expire and get it for cheap/free then. Of course, if consumers are given that choice, DRM would have to be much more palatable since it has to compete with the prospect of a free non-DRM version.
Not that I like to legitimize DRM, but to me the problem with it is that there is no reasonable legal alternative.
My webcomic