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.'"
So they admit they want to control our minds!
<Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
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.
I can't justify everything I've downloaded from the pirate bay, however, there are certain instances where I don't feel the least bit sorry:
* I purchased Spore and then downloaded the cracked version, which I installed on my computer, and then edited the system registry to give myself a the key. Sorry, if I purchased a piece of software, I deserve to get at least as good an experience as the pirates do, which means no rootkits.
* Several years ago, I purchased RPG Maker XP. I've gone through several computers since the purchase, and it no longer allows me to activate the software. I'd like to continue using the software that I legitimately paid for, and my only option is to download a cracked, pirated version.
* On many occasions, I've downloaded no-CD cracks for games I've purchased legitimately.
Did I violate the DMCA in these cases? Probably. Do I feel justified in doing so? Absolutely. I shouldn't be locked out of software that I purchase, and when I buy software legitimately, I shouldn't be punished for it with shitty DRM.
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.
Stop the presses! A PR Firm promotes the value of running a PR campaign!
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.
Keep trying. Your flaw is that if taken to the extreme of all digital media being pirated, the creators would indeed be deprived of the fruits of their labor.
How silly. You might as well claim you're being deprived of the fruits of your labor when you mow your neighbor's lawn (without asking him first) and then he refuses to pay you.
They're only entitled to "fruits of their labor" when someone has agreed to pay for that labor beforehand. If I decide to spend my time making a movie, the only thing I'm entitled to afterward is a copy of that movie. My choice to perform labor doesn't obligate anyone else to pay me for it. Such an obligation can only come from a mutual agreement between me and the person who's paying.
Even if only a fraction of the output is pirated, the business model of selling digital goods is subverted.
So what? No one is required to make another person's business model work, especially such a foolish model as "work for free now, sell copies later", and especially when propping up that model requires ceding one's own right to communicate.
It is specious to insist that nothing is lost simply because a material item did not change hands.
No, it's just a straightforward application of the meaning of "lost". You can't lose something you never had. You can't lose money that belongs to someone else. You can, however, fail to convince someone to give you their money.
Music, video, games, etc. are digital information that required a great deal of labor to create.
Indeed they are. That's why it's so foolish to do all that labor for free and then pray that you can recoup your production costs by selling copies, especially when you know anyone can cut you out of the loop by making their own copies at home. The creation is the valuable part, not the copying.
Copying it without compensation or in violation of the artist's chosen license does indeed transfer a good from the artist to the thief.
More directly, it transfers a good from the uploader (who is almost certainly not the artist) to the downloader.
But "transfer" is not theft. When I tell you that the acceleration due to gravity on Earth is 9.8 m/s/s, I've transferred information to you, but I haven't lost anything. If you pass that information on to someone else without my permission, I still haven't lost anything.
Theft absolutely requires a loss. That's what makes theft a bad thing in the first place: not the fact that the thief gets something for free, but the fact that the rightful owner no longer has it. If you could wave a magic wand and make a copy of someone's car, few people would object to that (since it doesn't make them any poorer), and you'd have a hard time convincing anyone to call it an act of theft.
Most people have a better understanding of what theft is, and why theft is wrong, than you seem to. The best possible outcome of your line of argument is that you convince a few people that there are two kinds of "theft": the kind that's bad and the kind that isn't. Is that really what you want?
Keep denying it. You are stuck in the past. In this century, digital goods are a valid commercial entity.
I'm not the one who's stuck in the past. Copyright is an artifact of a relatively brief era when copying on a massive scale was practical for a few wealthy entities (who could afford printing presses, CD manufacturing plants, etc.) but not for the masses. Copyright is enforceable when you only need to keep an eye on factory owners who see copying as a business venture. But that era is gone: copying is now practical on a massive scale for anyone, the most dangerous copying (to the antiquated business model) is casual and noncommercial, and copyright is no longer enforceable without utterly decimating free speech and technical innovation.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.