Competing Contests To Create Pro- and Anti-Piracy PSAs

An anonymous reader writes "New York City recently announced a PSA contest, in which it asked schoolkids to create a video about how evil piracy is. Techdirt found the whole marketing campaign questionable, and via some Freedom of Information Act requests, discovered the whole thing was really a propaganda front for NBC Universal. They also looked at the fine print on this 'pro-copyright' contest, and discovered that in entering, you agreed to give up your copyright. And, you were only allowed to repeat NBC Universal's talking points. Don't try suggesting that perhaps the industry should have adapted. In response, Techdirt has launched a competing video contest, where they ask people to create videos on the impact of technology on creativity. The Techdirt contest doesn't give you specific talking points, lets you present your own opinion, lets you retain the copyright on your work ... and is paying twice as much as the NYC/NBC contest."

Comments

This isn't anything new.

[EMG at MU]

Big pharma is behind get flu shot PSAs Big Dairy is behind the Got Milk PSAs The government is an arm of the corporations... oblig. news at 11 or whatever I don't even care anymore.

Re:This isn't anything new.

[Surt]

Got Milk is advertisement, not PSA.

Re:This isn't anything new.

[loxosceles]

I think the point is that the pharma/food industries generally aren't recruiting kids to produce propaganda like flu shot or Got Milk PSAs. The media giants, in contrast, generally don't have as many scruples.

The media industry is more desperate than those other industries. It doesn't matter whether you're for copyright or against it, virtually everyone without a large vested interest is against current absurd copyright terms, anti-circumvention, ACTA, etc. So the people trying to create propaganda supporting current copyright laws are desperate to expand their "piracy is theft" meme, and one of the things desperate people do is use non-rational means to persuade people.

This is not so much about creating an anti-piracy PSA (they could hire a media firm to do it for 5 figures, which is peanuts), but rather to indoctrinate the children into the belief that piracy is bad by enticing a bunch of young impressionable kids to regurgitate the industry's talking points.

(Unrelated, but worth noting since you brought it up: Trying to counter the Got Milk stuff could run into food libel laws.)

Re:This isn't anything new.

[Baloroth]

Slashdot commentators would complain if safety-rail makers funded a PSA about not leaning over safety rails. Milk is good for you (well, unless you're lactose intolerant) and so are flu shots (although the latter are far less important for individuals, herd immunity against the flu is very valuable). Corporations sponsoring PSAs about things that are good for you does not show that government is an arm of the corporations... nor in fact is that even true. If it really was, you would know it.

What is true, and has been for about 200 years now, is that many politicians are in the pockets of corporations / the mafia / private interests. Actually, you can make that 2000 years. Ancient Rome (the Republic) was run largely by the rich (partially by design, I should point out). In point of fact, so was the early US, to some degree (again, partly by design: the rich tend to be better educated and are far more likely to know what the hell is actually going on. For proof of this: just browse Internet comments for a few seconds. The average person is politically uneducated, and I actually include myself in that.)

So many decisions of governments are based on what corporation want, and this is not entirely a bad thing. Corporations are, after all, what employs just about everyone, and produces just about every single thing you own (even very large parts of Linux were designed by corporations). Obviously, it goes over the line quite a lot, and corruption is pretty rampant, but again, nothing new there, it has been that way in every government in history and will be for the rest of time. Calling government an arm of the corporations? Also goes over the line.

Re:This isn't anything new.

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Milk is good for you (well, unless you're lactose intolerant) and so are flu shots

Raw natural milk might be good for you, but the sterile pasturized milk most of us grew up drinking is NOT good for you.
I for one will not be getting a flu shot. I consider getting over the flu naturally to be exercising my immune system. I firmly believe that people who do not get the flu will be at a disadvantage when something deadly and contagious hits us. (airborne ebola?)
I also try not to use anti-bacterial soap.

Re:This isn't anything new.

[maxwell demon]

Raw natural milk might be good for you, but the sterile pasturized milk most of us grew up drinking is NOT good for you.

Any evidence for your claim?

I for one will not be getting a flu shot. I consider getting over the flu naturally to be exercising my immune system.

A flu shot is exercising the immune system. That's how it works. Your strategy is like not training soldiers because it's better training for them if another army actually invades the country and they then beat it than if you can beat that army directly at the border because of your well-trained soldiers.

Re:This isn't anything new.

[PopeRatzo]

The government is an arm of the corporations

"The government is a hostage of the corporations."

There, I fixed that for ya.

Re:This isn't anything new.

[Stormwatch]

"The government is a whore of the corporations."

There, I fixed that for ya.

Re:This isn't anything new.

[i_b_don]

Wow... i've grown used to cynicism and ignorance on the internet... but I've got to say your post is really quite depressing. Your post has a combination of cynicism, ignorance, and intelligence all at the same time and it's sad to see.

"Milk is good for you" is you repeating an advertisement. It has calcium yes, but it's also a high fat drink and it's health benefits are debatable. But I agree with your main premiss that corporations sponsoring PSAs are not intrinsically bad, except that it can lead to slanting of the truth to benefit said corporation. It most cases if you allow this, the corporation will just turn the PSA into an advertisement designed to sell their product. If some unbiased group controls what "truth" is told, then it's cool, but if the corporation controls this "truth", then we're in trouble.

Corporations are not your friend. Corporations are tools and they see you as a tool, "a resource". Each resource should be replaceable with another resource. People are only useful as long as they provide labor. The environment has little value. Profits are everything. Fairness, ethics, loyalty, responsibility are not expected or desired. Corporations are sociopaths by nature. This is the way they are designed. However... if properly harnessed with regulations to prevent abuses (such as not dumping toxic waste in their own back yard), and properly put into direct competition with other such corporations, they can produce benefit for all society.

The idea that "many decisions of the government being based upon what corporations want is not entirely a bad thing" is mind bogglingly stupid. If allowed corporations will make laws that only benefit themselves. They will push as many expenses away from themselves and toward citizens. They will capture regulators so they don't have to play fair. They will make laws so they don't have to pay for what they use, put in safety features, or properly dispose of waste. They will create monopolies. They will give themselves tax breaks, tax advantages, and make decisions that are only beneficial to the people in control of the corporation (these people are known as the top 1%). Their only goal is to make money.

As I said, corporations are sociopaths, so while they do good a lot of the time, you don't want to turn your backs to them and leave sharp objects lying around, and then tell them they can't do something. Government needs to be controlled by the people because that is our defense against and our control over the corporations that already control so much of our lives.

d

Re:This isn't anything new.

[black6host]

I think the point is that the pharma/food industries generally aren't recruiting kids to produce propaganda like flu shot or Got Milk PSAs. The media giants, in contrast, generally don't have as many scruples.

You can't download some milk, or flu shots. If you take them you're taking physical property that can't be duplicated without additional cost. I don't care for much the things that big pharma, or factory farms do but their risk of "loss" (and I use the term loosely, not trying to discuss "lost sales" or whatnot) is not the same as that of the content that the anti-piracy advocates (Big Corps) are trying to protect. Do I find the practices described in TFA despicable, deplorable, misleading and cause me to lose even more faith in our governments? You bet. It damn near makes me want to go d/l some stuff right now :)

Re:This isn't anything new.

[PopeRatzo]

"The government is a whore of the corporations."

As the old saying goes, "She is more to be pitied than censured."

Plus, since the government is basically us, that means you and I are also whores.

I like mine better. But I understand why you would be cranky. It's to be expected when things are bad. Everybody wants to blame someone else.

Re:This isn't anything new.

[countertrolling]

...that means you and I are also whores.

Sluts actually.. Whores get paid

Re:This isn't anything new.

[kmoser]

Johns, actually, since we pay the gov't (via taxes) for what they do to us, both good and bad.

Re:This isn't anything new.

[DrXym]

If a government wishes to make a PSA, why shouldn't they tap business to fund the campaign assuming their goals and the industry's are in alignment? If "big pharma" (whatever the fuck that means) stump up some cash for some marketing materials that promote vaccination which turn means less people get sick and die then great.

Re:This isn't anything new.

[rioki]

Basically +1

Basically the only reason why corporations are nice to people or care for the environment or what not is because it benefits them. The reason why car manufacturer build cleaner cars is only so they can sell you new ones. The only reason why light bulb manufacturer build energy saving light bulbs is so they can sell you new ones. The only reason why your employer cares for you is because most employers figured out that treating your people good binds talent and maximizes your individual output. Corporations are designed to be egoistic, it is nice when once in a while that egoism aligns itself with something good.

Re:This isn't anything new.

[mjr167]

It is easier to get your calcium needs from cheese than milk. A cup of milk has ~300mg. A ounze of chedder has ~240. You will get more calcium faster eating cheese.

Re:This isn't anything new.

[maxwell demon]

It is easier to get your calcium needs from cheese than milk.

That's completely irrelevant to the question whether drinking pasteurized milk is good for you or not.

Re:This isn't anything new.

[oldmac31310]

I concur! Never got a flu shot and never will.

Well done Techdirt

[Fluffeh]

When I see things like this, I immediately think "Well done!" to the owners/managers of the website. The normal website would have gone and written up an article on it and left it at that. There are very few sites that would have made the leap from "Waaaaa, look at those cronies!" to "Heh, I know how to fix this, give me some prize money - we're having a contest!".

I might even have to start having a read of the site every now and again.

Re:Well done Techdirt

[bws111]

Except that all this contest is likely to produce is snark and whining. If they really want to 'fix the problem', why don't they have a contest on HOW the 'industry can adapt'. Some real and workable, that does not involved stuff like 'beg' and 'work for free'. They don't have that contest because it is a hard problem, whereas making snark is simple.

Re:Well done Techdirt

[mandelbr0t]

Except that it is not a hard problem to fix. Netflix has been around for a while, and putting money into it would undoubtedly increase revenue. Unfortunately, the dinosaurs^W studio execs. charge an arm and a leg to Netflix, so they add a measly 100 or so titles (and almost no worthwhile TV) a year. I'd gladly pay triple or quadruple what I'm paying to Netflix if I could get some of the big network shows. Perhaps the industry should have a look at Icefilms to see what Netflix should be.

Re:Well done Techdirt

[Anonymous Coward]

You should try reading the site. While they haven't had a contest on it per se, they extensively cover the various business model approaches being used to make money not only in spite of, but also from piracy. The site itself is an example of one successful business model. The site's product is writing, which is available for free and is easily "pirated". The site makes money through advertising, merchandise, and a limited subscription model.

Re:Well done Techdirt

[mandelbr0t]

Well, compare that to a cable or satellite package. You don't seriously expect to get top-rated shows for $8/mo., do you?

Re:Well done Techdirt

[BabyDuckHat]

It's not our job to fix your company dude. Maybe if we thought you'd pay for the ideas instead of stealing them we would share them with you. No one works for free.

Re:Well done Techdirt

[mgblst]

If you don't already read techdirt, you do not know what is going on with our IP loving overlords. Incredibly information site, with great comments.

Re:Well done Techdirt

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I can get them for free (through illegal, but not criminal means, and not likely to have consequences) -- why would I expect to pay more?

Wasn't this discussion about business models so the industry could adapt to the ~0 marginal cost of sharing data? How does "hope everyone has respect for the law and obeys it out of honor" fit into that?

There are only two solutions. The bad one is to enforce copyright law. This is insanely hard as long as it's not criminal infringement, and it's unclear whether people are willing to pay enough for entertainment to sustain the cost of it; making all infringement criminal is worse -- while it does make the enforcement somewhat easier, and likely a more effective deterrent, it shifts even the financial costs of copyright (instituted and perpetrated for publishers' benefit at the expense of public liberty) to the public's pocket. The good one is to stop investing speculatively, producing a work you _hope_ people will pay you for, and using the government-endowed power of copyright to scare them into doing so. Instead, copying needs to be free, and creative works need to be funded by customers before or during development. Look at kickstarter for a working example.

Re:Well done Techdirt

[Isaac Remuant]

lead by example my good man, start doing what you suggest others should? If not, aren't you doing exactly the same thing you're criticizing in them?

Re:Well done Techdirt

[EdIII]

You have hit part of the problem already.

The industry specifically is not interested in adapting at all, because it would mean less revenue. It has to be less revenue, because you no longer have to buy the whole music album for one, you cannot get nearly as much money for advertisements, and the corporate greed-need for constant growth seems to completely disregard the fact that the consumer only has so much money they are willing to spend. They seem to think we can ultimately get to the point where we will spend as much on entertainment as we do transportation. Their dream goal is per eyeball payments like toll booths where retinal scans will automatically charge the consumer and it will be enforced by a new division of law enforcement.

ESPN is by far the worst. It is the Emperor Palpatine, the Dark Lord, Sauron of the industry. The rate increases it demands each year are so excessive, it begs a psychological study to determine what the fuck those executives are thinking.

Instead of having any measure of sanity and acceptance the industry is in complete and utter denial mode and using PACS to do through law what they cannot do through the markets.

I stopped spending quadruple my Netflix bill on Dish Network because I had a realization that 45% of all content I was flipping through was mind numbingly stupid advertisements. Channel surfing became an exercise in pain because the Dish Network box could only change channels so fast (takes time to start decoding the signal) and I was exposed to way too much noise instead of signal. It's way too disruptive to the experience as well.

I was literally paying Dish Network to sell myself as a commodity (pimping) to the content providers, and ultimately the advertising companies. WTF? Why I am doing this? How retarded could I have been for all these years not to see this?

It got worse during the last 3 years when I was one of these blind stupid consumers because I had a DVR. However, the industry did adapt to this. They started with watermarks, progressed to small indicators of the upcoming shows, to finally full on 25% moving pop-up advertisements IN-FUCKING-SHOW.

AMC? Seriously.... I get it. Breaking Bad is your cash cow. Do you have to have 30% of your screen taken up at all times advertising it?

I don't even torrent most shows anymore because they have effectively become unwatchable. Sorry, I guess I am too old already. I just can't enjoy an experience where there is tickers all over the place and information overload. Whatever happened to just watching a movie or show without interruptions, or a single 5 minute interruption in the middle to allow you go to bathroom, get a drink, etc. Advertisements used to be useful to the consumer before the wide usage of VCRs for that purpose alone.

Anybody remember the new channels before 9/11? They did not always have tickers like that. New channels used to just the news and without sidebars, holograms, and 19 billion discrete channels of information flooding you at once.

It's overkill on a massive scale.

You look at all the alternatives out there and it becomes clear that they want DRM locked down content that you "purchased" (laughable at best), and premium rental rates per title. All of the cable providers are trying to offer movies for $3.99 and on up. Sometimes nearly 65-70% of the movie ticket price. That's insanity.

Even Amazon and Block Buster are part of that game, and only Amazon has Prime. Prime is also dismally prepared to do battle with Netflix on title selection and it will never get better because content owners don't want unlimited access to huge catalogues for a fixed low monthly price. It directly competes with the ultra-premium offerings found elsewhere.

It's like having 45 stores out there selling your product for $19.99 and a single store selling it for $2.99. Wouldn't you resist and try to destroy the $2.99 priced store?

That's why adaptation is impossible. It directly conflicts with

Re:Well done Techdirt

[rioki]

"There has to be incentive to create, or there will be no creation."

What utter bullshit. Most if not all artists create out of love or compulsion. Not because they get payed. Getting payed for what you do just makes creation easier. But it never are the artists that complain about piracy, ya know. Its the corporations that are behind the artists that complain. They have lots to lose.

To see proof of that just look on the internet, places like deviant art. Those people are not creating because they get payed, they create because they love. Many hope that love and pay align themselves, but that seldom happens. Even artists, once employed, what they create is not fun, it's a job, not what they want to do. Many will do stuff along the job, because that is the fun part.

Re:Occupy this

[Flyerman]

Glass Steagal is gone? If there's no FDIC I gotta go pull my money.

Do you drink more milk because of it?

[khasim]

Big pharma is behind get flu shot PSAs Big Dairy is behind the Got Milk PSAs The government is an arm of the corporations... oblig. news at 11 or whatever I don't even care anymore.

So the cynical teens will look at the anti-piracy PSA's created and understand that they're just a corporation trying to manipulate them via other teens.

I don't think this will be as successful as they want.

If anything, it will "justify" the cynical teens "pirating" content as "ironic" or "sarcastic". Instead of just for selfish reasons (which they may have done already).

Re:Do you drink more milk because of it?

[blair1q]

No, but I think about tits more because of it.

Re:Do you drink more milk because of it?

[spyder-implee]

If anything, it will "justify" the cynical teens "pirating" content as "ironic" or "sarcastic".

This is EXACTLY how I feel as a 28 year old. Should I see a doctor?

Re:Do you drink more milk because of it?

[MacGyver2210]

No, I drink Milk because it's fucking delicious.

Re:Do you drink more milk because of it?

[Coren22]

Really? sounds like a personal problem. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_(bird)

My Script

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"You wouldn't want to play a movie on any unauthorized devices."

"You wouldn't want to skip the movie previews we've carefully chosen for you.."

"You wouldn't want to have a backup handy if your media was damaged."

Be a good citizen, report piracy today!.

Re:My Script

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we need to replace "Stop Snitchin'" with a "Snitch Up" campaign.

1. Never snitch on someone at or below your socioeconomic or authority level.
2. Always snitch on someone above your socioeconomic or authority level.

When the rich and powerful become the preferred targets of law enforcement, the laws will change.

Re:My Script

[Imagix]

Um, fix the first one to "You wouldn't want to play a move on any device.". And add "You wouldn't want to skip the ads that you must watch every time you stick in the DVD."

Re:My Script

[MachDelta]

Oblig:

You wouldn't download a car...

Fuck you! I would if I could!

Re:My Script

[CanHasDIY]

When the rich and powerful become the preferred targets of law enforcement, the laws will change.

...and when the rich and powerful stop paying them off, that might actually happen.

Re:My Script

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

No, I'm not. It's a pro-piracy ad.

Re:My Script

[mandelbr0t]

but you really should stop confusing these two issues...

Unfortunately, laws in most of the Western world already confuse the two issues. On the one hand, we have a law that fairly balances creators' rights with consumers'... and then the DRM portion is added in to completely undermine any sense of balance.

Re:My Script

[SleazyRidr]

You wouldn't steal a handbag.
You wouldn't steal a car.
You wouldn't steal a baby.
You wouldn't shoot a policeman. And then steal his helmet.
You wouldn't go to the toilet in his helmet. And then send it to the policeman's grieving widow. And then steal it again!
Downloading films is stealing. If you do it, you will face the consequences.

Re:My Script

[maxwell demon]

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20020428

Re:My Script

[chronoglass]

you call it a payoff.
they call it overtime.

you too can pay off the cops, all you have to do is ask.

Re:My Script

[Quirkz]

"You wouldn't want to skip the movie previews we've carefully chosen for you.."

I REALLY hate the DVDs where the previews are basically forced on you and it doesn't let you skip them. (Also, DVDs where they've set the "menu" to be at the beginning of the previews instead of the real menu.)

That particular issue is at least 50% because of the hardware. It seems like it would be easy enough to make a DVD player which simply ignored the "skipping isn't allowed" option. I would throw away my perfectly functional player and buy a replacement today, based on that feature alone. Do they exist? Anybody want to start a company that makes them?

Re:My Script

[Lord_Jeremy]

It's not legal in many countries to make them. To "legally" make a DVD player (that doesn't violate the US DMCA or another country's similar laws) you have to get a license from the DVD Forum that include the CSS decryption key. They will not give you a license if your player does not respect parts of the standard, e.g. the "skipping isn't allowed" sections. Since CSS has been cracked it's perfectly feasible to create a non-licensed player (such as VLC) but technically those players are illegal in the US since they include software for circumventing copy-protection measures (CSS). Also they can't have the DVD logo or anything like that on them due to trademark violation. Same thing in regards to region-locked players.

Re:My Script

[Anonymous Coward]

You wouldn't build a business around laws that were originally designed to benefit the public, and then lobby to deprive the public domain of all that property and keep it for yourself in perpetuity so you could sue anyone that tried to obtain content without your permission...

Sorry, but no.

It's piracy writ large, yes, but not just the extension bullshit, the whole history of copyright is one of estblished industry corrupting government to receive protection against competition.

Copyright law was never designed to benefit the public -- it was originally designed entirely to benefit London publishers and booksellers, with only the compromises needed to get the law passed. They couldn't get the unlimited term they wanted, so they settled for a 14 year term; they couldn't get the right assigned to them, so they concocted a hitherto unknown "inherent right" of authors to control their work, with the practical understanding that authors would sell that right to a publisher (since they couldn't print it themselves), giving the entrenched industry effective control. And in the end, they couldn't even get this "right" of authors to own intellectual property (and hence forbid copying) into the law (though it was their main talking point, and featured prominently in the draft verison), so they settled for "encouragement of learned men to compose and write useful books" as a justification.

Once it was passed, they made all speed to pursue extensions, and other industries naturally lobbied to have this government protection of an established industry work for them as well, eventually winding up where we are today.

Re:My Script

[Anonymous Coward]

"You wouldn't bribe a politician."

"You wouldn't subvert the international treaty process to undemocratically impose draconian laws on countries whose people don't want them."

"You wouldn't sue a single mother for millions of dollars when you know she can't pay."

So don't pay for music or movies, because those people would, and did.

Re:My Script

[Trogre]

+1

The reason we're in this mess is because ordinary folks like you and me for some reason keep giving these sods money to buy laws.

Well not me. Not anymore.

Re:My Script

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't exist /as such/, but there are patches that make players ignore the "do not skip" bit. For instance, here's one for a Philips player (DVP5160) , and one for the Mac OS X player. If you want to search for more, the technical name for the limitations is "User Operations Prohibition", or UOP.

Re:My Script

[Stuarticus]

Chris Morris?

Re:My Script

[SleazyRidr]

Indeed, it's from The IT Crowd.

Re:My Script

[thyrial]

Indeed, it's from The IT Crowd.

Graham Linehan* actually. Morris was involved in the IT crowd, but purely as an actor. (*Being a nice bloke he he told me it [via his a comments section on his website] was ok to download a few episodes of the IT crowd I'd missed , as long as , if I liked them , I bought the DVD when it came out ,I did both, and actually bought em twice I guess when I picked up a box set.Mind you the "you wouldnt steal a handbag.." episode came out the following week , so he'd have looked a bit silly if he called me a degenerate pirate and reported me to the police I guess...;))

Re:Hyprocrites

[xyourfacekillerx]

Wow. That's hilarious. Of course the "Copyrights are teh evil!!" crowd want to own and control things, it's human tendency. but this is just pathetic.

Re:Hyprocrites

[Dunbal]

Except as expressly authorized by Floor64

And if you read their contest announcement, they expressly state that you retain all rights to your work but allow them to use it on their sites. Next.

Turntable mats

[jms]

Heh. A DJ friend has a set of turntable mats with the slogan on them:

"Copyright infringement is your best entertainment value"

Says it all right there,

Re:Turntable mats

[brit74]

Out of curiosity, couldn't you also (truthfully) say things like "car theft is your best transportation value" or "laptop theft is your best computing value"? From the standpoint of "value", doing illegal things is always better than doing things the legal way.

script

[roc97007]

"I'm eight years old, and I used to watch The Little Mermaid every day. One day my disc wouldn't play. My dad says it's got a scratch on it so it won't play anymore. I cried and cried, so my dad downloaded the movie from some website and burned me another copy. I turned my dad in to the nice people at the MPAA and he's serving hard time now. My mom and I aren't very happy at the shelter, but we feel better now that the movie studios are getting their fair share."

Don't pirate movies. Because the movie studios aren't rich enough."

Re:script

[roc97007]

> A better reason would be "Don't pirate movies because most of them stink anyway and you don't want your mind warped by what constitutes scripts, dialogue or acting these days.

Well yeah, but I'm eight years old fer chrissake. We have much lower standards for entertainment.

Re:script

[BronsCon]

Show belly button and go to bed.

Re:script

[roc97007]

> You eight-year-olds sew some crooked and brittle seams into the clothes I buy.

I work my fingers to the bone making your GAP hoodies and this is the thanks I get??

Re:script

[Solandri]

Disney is actually one of the few studios who will replace damaged discs for a nominal shipping and handling fee. Probably because so many kids destroy the discs and tapes. In that respect, they are upholding the "you only bought a license" model of buying DVDs. The other studios are cheating by telling you you only bought a license, but if you try to get them to fulfill their obligations as a licensor and request a replacement for damaged media, they'll tell you to buy another one.

Re:script

[mgblst]

I would love to see an ad where a bunch of people are crowded around a bomb ticking down. Someone raced in with a DVD of how to deactivate the bomb, they place it in, and due to all the piracy warnings and unskippable content, they run out of time and the bomb explodes.

Re:script

[markg11cdn]

Thanks for the info on replacement disks from Disney. That's a great policy for the company. That almost makes up for the fact that they are 'responsible' for extending copyright another 20 years in the US.

Re:script

[roc97007]

If that were a movie, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost would be in it.

Re:script

[roc97007]

I didn't know that, and I will try it. (Seriously.)

One possible problem is that the "nominal shipping and handling fee" is often substantially less than the list price of the product (else what's the point?) but is less of a deal when compared to the street price. Over time, as the dropping street price approaches the fee, the offer becomes moot.

So, why not just buy another copy off the discount rack? Well, I could do that, but the main reason is because I've already bought the damned title once. You see the temptation to download it? I've got the original, unplayable disc right over there in it's box.

This reminds me of the time I bought a rather expensive (at the time) computer peripheral that, it turns out, did not and could never have a working driver for the current (at the time) version of Windows due to a design error. I and many others complained bitterly about this in forums. I was contacted by the manufacturer (good for them, really) and was offered a substantial discount off the list price of the later, corrected version of the product.

The problem is, the street price of the new product had *already* dropped to within 5% of the discounted amount. So they were essentially offering to make amends for buying a $300 peripheral I could not use, by offering me another $300 peripheral discounted clear the hell down to the asking price at the local Egghead. Gee..... thanks.

A few months later the company went bankrupt. That was a nice bonus, but I was still out the money.

Re:script

[EdIII]

Although that may be true, Disney is locked at the knees with more force than a super massive black hole with their content.

I have nieces and nephews and for the longest time obtaining it in the first place on DVD was near impossible.

There is a LOT of Disney content that they still refuse to release.

Re:script

[EdIII]

Sorry for the double reply... but I can't believe I forgot to mention this....

If Disney is so pro-consumer and pro-sane-copyright, why have they not put Snow White in the public domain? Cinderella?

At some point it is just ridiculous that they are not, and we have long since reached it.

Re:script

[Splab]

Actually Disney movies are rarely on the discount rack. They are pressed for a limited time and go out of production, so you always get to pay premium for Disney movies.

Good thing they do the replacement though.

Re:script

[xhrit]

Snow White and Cinderella are in the public domain.

Re:script

[Imbrondir]

Cool. Except I could only find it offered for USA and Canada.

Re:script

[roc97007]

I understand that Disney *tries* to make that happen, and it is partly successful. Nevertheless, if you look you can find Disney movies on the marked-down rack in larger supermarkets, and you can find them used and/or discounted at local used-cd stores and online. For instance, the 2 disc anniversary edition blu-ray of Dumbo is currently selling on Amazon for $17.

Re:script

[roc97007]

I think he meant, the movies produced by Disney, not the original stories...

Re:Hyprocrites

[jdastrup]

And all NBC is saying is they who created the content (TV shows, movies, etc) should retain all the rights.

Yes, the contest is stupid for claiming rights on the submissions, but TechDirt isn't completely anti-copyright as they pretend to be by this contest.

The only way to do this

[tenzig_112]

The Pro-Piracy PSA should be an exact copy of the Anti-Piracy PSA but the voice over should be read with a barely perceptible hint of sarcasm.

Re:The only way to do this

[mister_playboy]

Stephen Colbert, is that you?

Mathematically...

[migla]

Mathematically, we should pirate the shit out of things.

See, a good movie or song has value - it enriches a persons life. The cost of copying these things is negligible. So, essentially for free, we can create enormous value in form of good feeling, learning, culture and stuff for billions of humans.

Now, of course the poor starving movie execs will loose, but they're free to get a job at McD.

All the artists and craftspersons that are actually required should of course get by. If copying was legal, art would probably increasingly be crowd-funded before creation, but a meager living wage for everyone would really let artist just about not starve and enable passionate people to keep doing their art.

The value from copying will be far greater than the loss of value from it. I'm not gonna worry my pretty little head trying to calculate numbers, but I'm sure the math is solid.

If we can give something good to everyone for free, it would be the right thing to do.

Re:Mathematically...

[Bob9113]

Now, of course the poor starving movie execs will loose, but they're free to get a job at McD.

All the artists and craftspersons that are actually required should of course get by.

Hmmm, so the current bloodthirsty interpretation of copyright doesn't work, but there is a flaw in eliminating copyright altogether. If only there were some way to secure a limited right for a shorter period of time. Like, suppose copyright lasted for 7 years automatically, then could be re-upped for another 7, and suppose it did not cover copying for educational purposes or satire. That would give enough financial incentive to keep those people who are genuinely passionate about the craft in the game, without creating such an enormous cashflow as to attract all the lawyers and sociopaths (who ultimately wind up drowning out the people who are doing it because they have a genuine gift, or something important to say).

It almost seems like some really sharp people could have figured that out right at the beginning.

Oh yeah, they did.

Re:Mathematically...

[Americano]

Right - we should kill the goose and take all the golden eggs out at once! Enough with this waiting for a single egg every few days!

Any system which requires a creator to produce in order to have his creation shoveled into the outstretched hands of other people to "enrich their lives" with no consideration or value given in return for the effort and skill required to perform the act of creation is monstrously unjust.

You make a lot of hand-waving assertions, and then tell us that you're "not gonna worry your pretty little head trying to calculate numbers, but I'm sure the math is solid." Which tells us you have devoted exactly zero time to actually thinking about what you've proposed.

If we can give something good to everyone for free, it would be the right thing to do.

Yes, if we could give something to everyone for free, it would totally be right. Except the time and effort required to produce a song, movie, book, picture, or any other creative work is not zero. Therefore it is not free to create, and in fact might require many hundreds, thousands, or even millions of dollars to produce, as well as many weeks, months, or even years to create it. So what mechanism do you propose that will compensate creators for their time, talent, effort and materials?

Re:Mathematically...

[Xugumad]

> If copying was legal, art would probably increasingly be crowd-funded before creation, but a meager living wage for everyone would really let artist just about not starve and enable passionate people to keep doing their art.

So... you're happy with the trickle of creative output that people insanely dedicated enough to create content under your "meagre living wage" would be able to produce?

Who do you fund? How do you decide what's worth funding and what isn't? What guarantees do you have of a quality result? How do you get the best stuff out to people (if this seems like a silly question, go wandering through the free apps in the Android market store - there's some great stuff off in the depths, but can you be bothered finding it)?

> I'm not gonna worry my pretty little head trying to calculate numbers, but I'm sure the math is solid.

You want to reduce everyone working on copyright-based industries to a "meagre wage" and hope crowd-sourcing pays even that, but have no idea of what's involved, beyond a feeling of intuition?

What you're suggesting massacres future creative production in return for short term gain. There are substantially better suggestions (someone else's point about 7 year copyrights, for example - long enough to sell a copy to most people who really want a product, without being long enough to let them sit back and live off something they did once).

Re:Mathematically...

[Xugumad]

> Except the time and effort required to produce a song, movie, book, picture, or any other creative work is not zero.

For bonus points, much of the "freely" produced content is paid for indirectly by copyright material. A lot of creative people paid by a day job in copyright-based industries then create this material in their free time.

This also ignores the huge time investment to become good at many of these areas (I've been coding for nearly two decades now, and still learn new skills on a regular basis).

Re:Mathematically...

[Endo13]

Right - we should kill the goose and take all the golden eggs out at once! Enough with this waiting for a single egg every few days!

That's exactly what the mega corps are doing, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that.

Any system which requires a creator to produce in order to have his creation shoveled into the outstretched hands of other people to "enrich their lives" with no consideration or value given in return for the effort and skill required to perform the act of creation is monstrously unjust.

No one's requiring those creators to produce anything.

You make a lot of hand-waving assertions, and then tell us that you're "not gonna worry your pretty little head trying to calculate numbers, but I'm sure the math is solid." Which tells us you have devoted exactly zero time to actually thinking about what you've proposed.

Who cares? You're doing exactly the same in this next quote:

Yes, if we could give something to everyone for free, it would totally be right. Except the time and effort required to produce a song, movie, book, picture, or any other creative work is not zero. Therefore it is not free to create, and in fact might require many hundreds, thousands, or even millions of dollars to produce, as well as many weeks, months, or even years to create it. So what mechanism do you propose that will compensate creators for their time, talent, effort and materials?

GP's point is that we would be better off with no copyright than the copyright we currently have. And he is absolutely correct. Now, if you take copyright and adjust it for today's world, it would be better than no copyright, but that's not what we have. The biggest change that needs to happen for copyright to be good and not evil is the duration. Copyright in the US originally lasted 14 years, with a possible 14 year extension if the creator was still alive. This was at a time when the only stuff to be copyrighted was printed material, which took potentially months or years to print, and even more years to distribute to your target market. This is without even considering the time to actually write the book in the first place. In today's world, a book, a movie, an audio track, a picture, and anything else that can be pirated can be produced in a matter of months and distributed in a matter of minutes or hours - and that's global distribution. You can make your product available to your entire global target market that quickly. Given how much more quickly you can now make your production available to anyone who actually wants to buy it, copyright should be that much shorter, not longer. Taking these things into account, a much more fair copyright duration today would be something like 5 years with a possible 2 year extension, if the creator is still alive. Instead, copyright currently lasts 75 years after the creator's death... and long before we reach that point for anything, law will be rewritten to allow for still more copyright extensions.

Disney was the original driving force behind insane copyright extensions, but they're certainly not alone any more.

Re:Mathematically...

[Endo13]

Your statement itself is trite and meaningless and pretty much worthless, but it does serve to (as a byproduct) point out something interesting:

Art's value is inherantly very subjective. In a civilization merely fighting for survival every day, it's pretty much worthless. When people have time to actually enjoy and pay for art, it's still only ever worth what people are willing to pay. The creator can set the price, but he can never set the value. If the price is too high, some (or all) people won't buy it, and he only has himself to blame.

Piracy, in reality, is simply the free market at work, balancing out prices that are higher than the actual value of the art being sold.

Re:Mathematically...

[Americano]

That's exactly what the mega corps are doing, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that.

... really? Because I'm pretty certain that the mega corps are all about protecting that goose with walls, fences, razorwire, and armed guards so nobody can get to it but them.

No one's requiring those creators to produce anything.

If your system of compensation says "do away with copyright so anybody can have anything they want for free," then the system you have constructed requires creators to create by sacrificing their own time and money to the "enrichment" of their fellow man, and we are told by GGP that this is a good thing. If you build a system that constrains the creators' ability to set their own terms and conditions for acquiring a copy of the thing they've created, you are "requiring" them to work under a specific set of conditions. Are you suggesting that a system in which creators simply... don't create anything - or in which creators are expected to create to their own detriment - is better than the current system?

Who cares? You're doing exactly the same in this next quote:

In fact, I did the exact opposite - I specifically called out the fact that there IS a cost - in time, money, materials, and expertise - required to produce any creative work. And then I asked the GGP how he proposed that a content creator be compensated for that time, money, material, and expertise. It would be really great if I could eat without having to work for anything, and have a place to live without any effort, but that's not reality. Things have costs to produce, even if they have "very low duplication costs." Hell, a printed book has very low production costs compared to the cost of the book already - do you really think it costs $12.99, or even a majority of that list price, to print & bind a copy of a typical paperback? Of course not - editors, writers, typesetters, graphic designers, advertisers all need to be paid for their time spent bringing the book to market, too.

Any system that disregards the cost of production - not just the cost of duplicating an original - does so to the detriment of the creator, and in essence turns them into a beast of burden, sentenced to create things for the "benefit" of other people, to the detriment of themselves. I specifically ended my statements about cost with a question: What mechanism is proposed to compensate creators for their time and effort, if we want to make all content freely available to anybody who wants a copy? It was a genuine question, which I'd like to hear genuine answers to, not handwaving assertions about "somehow the math will work out because I *feel* it will."

Re:Mathematically...

[Endo13]

... really? Because I'm pretty certain that the mega corps are all about protecting that goose with walls, fences, razorwire, and armed guards so nobody can get to it but them.

Clearly you don't realize what the goose is here. You're talking about their protected works. Thing is, by themselves, those works aren't worth jack shit. We're the goose, and our money is the golden eggs. Those protected works are merely the tool used to extrect the eggs from the goose. And they are indeed working very hard at bilking us for every red cent we're worth as quickly as possible, and nevermind about tomorrow, let alone next year.

If your system of compensation says blah blah blah, ad infinitum

Clearly you still don't get it. So I'll repeat it for you one more time, with pertinent emphasis: No one is requiring those creators to produce anything.

In fact, I did the exact opposite

No, you didn't. You made a lot of hand-waving assertions about lots of time and millions of dollars that absolutely positively must be spent to produce anything, ever.

Any system that disregards the cost of production - not just the cost of duplicating an original - does so to the detriment of the creator, and in essence turns them into a beast of burden, sentenced to create things for the "benefit" of other people, to the detriment of themselves. I specifically ended my statements about cost with a question: What mechanism is proposed to compensate creators for their time and effort, if we want to make all content freely available to anybody who wants a copy? It was a genuine question, which I'd like to hear genuine answers to, not handwaving assertions about "somehow the math will work out because I *feel* it will."

It may have been a "genuine question", but it's already been answered upwards of umpteen billion times. Here's the two most popular and quite viable answers:

1. With a copyright system that's actually fair
2. With a commission system

Re:Mathematically...

[Americano]

Clearly you don't realize what the goose is here. You're talking about their protected works. Thing is, by themselves, those works aren't worth jack shit. We're the goose, and our money is the golden eggs. Those protected works are merely the tool used to extrect the eggs from the goose. And they are indeed working very hard at bilking us for every red cent we're worth as quickly as possible, and nevermind about tomorrow, let alone next year.

Right... because creators aren't forced to create anything, as you've inanely asserted twice. But consumers... holy hell, we're forced to buy DOZENS of movies we don't need or want, and songs we hate, and books we'll never read, all to support some big ominous mega corps that are sucking the life out of us. Do you really believe this idiotic shit you're spouting, or are you just firing for rhetorical effect right now?

The creators are the goose. The golden eggs are the things they produce that people wish to buy. The original post I responded to suggested that we do away with any copyright protection whatsoever, positing the notion that "sure, the creator might lose something, but the enrichment of society far outweighs that." Any system that says it's okay to kill the creator to get your hands on some free golden eggs is - as I correctly noted - monstrously unjust, and therefore ineligible for any credibility or rational consideration.

No one is requiring those creators to produce anything.

Correct. And nobody is REQUIRING you to buy anything. Write your own stories. Film your own movies. Sing your own songs. If you want something produced by another person, they have the right to determine the terms under which they'll sell you a copy. They are not your slaves, to be told "PRODUCE!" with no alternative. The entire alternate system that is suggested by the post I originally responded to relies on some people being so driven to create that they will do so even if it comes at great detriment to their own well being - create, with no hope of compensation or reward. And once again, any system that relies on this, rather than providing incentive and reward for talented creators to spend time, money, and effort to create something, is, simply put, evil.

No, you didn't. You made a lot of hand-waving assertions about lots of time and millions of dollars that absolutely positively must be spent to produce anything, ever.

I see that your reading comprehension has once again failed you. Let's check the replay, shall we? Here's what I wrote: "Except the time and effort required to produce a song, movie, book, picture, or any other creative work is not zero. Therefore it is not free to create, and in fact might require many hundreds, thousands, or even millions of dollars to produce, as well as many weeks, months, or even years to create it."

Hundreds, thousands, or even millions of dollars to produce - absolutely true:
-- How will you produce even an a cappella song without at least a recording device, and some method of duplicating and distributing it? That'll cost you at least a hundred bucks for a shitty recording device and a few hours of computer time.
-- How will you produce a 2 hour film without the tools and personnel to record, produce, and star in it? (or even worse, the teams of animators to produce the animated characters you want to make a film about?) No-budget indie films regularly clock in with budgets of several thousand dollars. Summer popcorn movies (quite popular, even if you don't think they're particularly worthy of your money) regularly clock in with budgets of tens to hundreds of millions of dollars.

Weeks, months, even years to create it - again, absolutely true. Show me a creative endeavor whose production doesn't take at least a week of investment in developing the skills and procuring the materials required to produce anything. "But you can paint a picture in an hour," you're

Re:Mathematically...

[westlake]

All the artists and craftspersons that are actually required should of course get by. If copying was legal, art would probably increasingly be crowd-funded before creation, but a meager living wage for everyone would really let artist just about not starve and enable passionate people to keep doing their art.

Art is traditionally funded by the state, the church or the mechant prince --- each with its own agenda.

What they bring to the table is organization, money, talent and material resources of every sort. Institutonal memory. Long-term commitments.

There is passion, yes, but more importantly there is focus, clear vision. They know where they want to be, they now how to get there --- and they know that the best doesn't come cheap.

Case in point: Jobs and Pixar.

Not a word, not a whisper, posted to Slashdot about the latest Humble Indie Bundle.

The crowd is fickle. The crowd drifts away.

It wants to see something tangible. It wants to see the home run.

How many times does a gamer have to be burned before he stops pre-ordering games like DNF and RAGE based on the rep of the title or developer?

If he can't trust the pro to deliver the goods, how much faith can he have in the amateur?

How much will he be willing to gamble?

The returns on the "Humble Bundle" suggests no more than $5.

Re:Mathematically...

[Endo13]

I see that your reading comprehension has once again failed you. Let's check the replay, shall we? Here's what I wrote: "Except the time and effort required to produce a song, movie, book, picture, or any other creative work is not zero.

I know what you wrote. It's the same fucking sob story we've heard literally billions of times by now. And yes, you're accompanying it with hand-wave assertions. Frankly, I couldn't care less any more.

Artists are doing just fine these days, despite all the "damage" piracy is doing. In fact, there's a far greater percentage of the world's population making a far greater inflation-adjusted income today than ever before in any history we have access to. So spare me the "starving artist" bullshit.

If piracy really were a problem, they'd have stopped producing this shit that costs oh so much time and oh so much money and moved on to something more profitable that fills a more tangible need than entertainment.

So if it's been answered umpteen billion times, why are there still calls for abolishing copyright in a way that penalizes creators and demands that they work to their own detriment? Why are you not repeating the "fair copyright / commission system" argument to the original poster who suggested that copyright should be done away with because hurting a few creative types is a small price to pay for giving everybody a copy of the latest Miley Cyrus album? In short, why are you not suggesting these proposals in agreement with my point that creators deserve compensation for the products of their work, rather than arguing that I'm wrong, and the person arguing for abolishing copyright is correct?

Because he's already offered a solution that's an improvement over what we have today, and you haven't.

Re:Mathematically...

[blair1q]

Art is only worthless if you're subjective about it.

The most valuable art is actually most valuable because of all the objective data built up about it. Who painted it, why, where, under what conditions, in relation to what events, with what limitations; what's in it, what symbolism was intended, what is inferred, what secret meanings and inside jokes it contains; who's owned it, who's seen it or touched it, where it's been, how it's been treated; how its value curve is trending; and so on;

How pretty it is is actually only a small part of it, and is probably only truly significant to the artist, or to the first person to have bought it from his stall at the gallery, or to the thousands who wander past it in a museum, not knowing a thing about what it may have cost the last time it was sold.

But that's besides the point. My statement about FOSS should have clued you that by "art" I meant anything created, not merely aesthetic notions in aesthetic media.

When you take the value proposition out of producing something, you take a lot of valuable producers out of production, simply because they're not motivated to put any effort into that when they can make money picking peas in California.

Re:Mathematically...

[Americano]

Artists are doing just fine these days, despite all the "damage" piracy is doing. In fact, there's a far greater percentage of the world's population making a far greater inflation-adjusted income today than ever before in any history we have access to. So spare me the "starving artist" bullshit.

So then there's no problem with the current system. Huge numbers of artists are thriving, by your own admission, sounds like copyright & the current system of payments works exactly as intended.

What exactly is your problem with the current system, then, besides "I can't have free shit"?

Re:Mathematically...

[Americano]

The best artists, musicians, writers etc. would:

1) Not be anywhere near as proficient or accomplished at their art if they only did it in their "spare" time;
2) would not create nearly so much if they couldn't keep a roof over their heads and have food to eat while doing it;

If you want a world where the height of artistic expression is producing some writing of the same quality of the shitty fan fiction or obnoxious electronic music the web is full of, then I think it's reasonable to suggest that you have no business offering opinions about viable funding strategies for the arts.

Re:Mathematically...

[Trogre]

That is awful.

How much does your course depend on RIAA-licenced music? Could you for example move to less encumbered music, such as that released under Creative Commons licences?

Re:Mathematically...

[Sabriel]

Er, what?

GP: "Artists are doing just fine these days, despite all the "damage" piracy is doing".
You: "sounds like copyright & the current system of payments works exactly as intended."

So if it's working exactly as intended, does that mean the laws are designed to be broken?

Re:Mathematically...

[Americano]

Oh, I'm sorry, only GGP is allowed to be deliberately obtuse and completely misrepresent the commentary of other people.

I stand corrected.

Re:Mathematically...

[devent]

Interesting to note, that for 1000s of years it was exactly like that. The creator created "things for the "benefit" of other people, to the detriment of themselves.". Artists didn't received any royalties for centuries, but for the most part art was a job like painting a house. All the great artists and composer just received money one time for a job done, but the work was available for all humankind.

The modern copyright law is just about 300 years old, but it did nothing to actually improve the income for artists. What it did is create artificial monopolies for publishers. There are just 1% of top rich artists, but for 99% of the rest copyright did nothing for them.

Now with the modern technology like internet I see lot of people who create stuff just for the fun of it. And high quality stuff, like videos, pictures, music and software. So the first assumption of copyright is just false, that nobody will create anything if they did not get money in return. The second assumption of copyright is false as well, that longer copyright will improve compensation of artists.

The logical consequence is to abolish copyright in the current form or reduce it's term drastically.

Re:Mathematically...

[devent]

The problem with the current laws is that it invades my privacy and my right to my property (with DRM) and that is robs me from my culture. Music, games and videos that I grow up with will still be protected years after I die, I cannot share them or use them to create new art. If the laws are going like they go now, copyright will be indefinitely sooner or later (they just extend another 50 or 100 years every time the Beatles or Disneys Mickey Mouse dare to go to public domain).

Because they crossed the line and done substantial damage to our privacy, property and culture, I do not see any ground for discussions, and the only conclusion for me is to abolish copyright in the current form as soon as possible.

Re:Mathematically...

[Americano]

Interestingly, in the romanticized time you're talking about, "art" was primarily something created at the behest of wealthy patrons, corporations, monarchs, and religious figures. And when it was created that way, there weren't a lot of people engaging in "art for art's sake" (compared to today), and access to those creations was primarily restricted to the wealthy patrons who commissioned the pieces. The "common man" was too busy scratching out a living to bother himself with much in the way of art, other than singing a few traditional songs and maybe seeing a play if their local upper class bothered providing some circuses to go with all that bread.

And you keep saying that people are producing art just for the fun of it... so please, point me to some amateur who works at McDonald's who also happen to be consistently creating things that are the equivalent of works by David Foster Wallace, Martin Scorsese, the Beatles, or Henri Cartier-Bresson. I'm quite interested to see the work of these wunderkind.

The logical consequence is to abolish copyright

No, that's not the logical consequence. That would be a very poor replacement for our current copyright system.

or reduce its term drastically

Perhaps. People love to use weasel words here though, and say we need "reasonable terms," when what they really mean by "reasonable" entails weeks or months, rather than years. The sensible solution in an age of digital media is that the creator owns all rights to his work, and may set the terms under which he wishes to sell or share that work while he is alive. After that, the work becomes public domain, and the creator can decide to (irrevocably) put his work in the public domain at ANY point during his life as well. Alternately, a creator may choose to sell his copyrights to a corporation, but then those rights expire much faster - say 5 years after the transfer of copyright, at which point the creation moves to the public domain.

My issue here is with the people who seem to feel it's okay to punish artists for the abusive copyright practices of the distributors - abolishing copyright is foolish and short-sighted.

Re:Mathematically...

[Americano]

copyright =/= drm. Learn the difference, because they're two separate issues.

Claiming that the only solution to some abusive elements of copyright is to dismantle the entire notion of copyright is simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

As a practical example - you realize that abolishing copyright would also abolish the GPL, and allow any corporation who wants to to grab any piece of code they want to, closed-source it and contribute nothing back to the community... right?

Re:Mathematically...

[brit74]

The value from copying will be far greater than the loss of value from it. I'm not gonna worry my pretty little head trying to calculate numbers, but I'm sure the math is solid.

Mathematically, I can also show that the best "value" to society is to take your car and house and give them to other people who will use them better. Are you willing to give them up now?

I think there are plenty of situations like this. Example: people shouldn't have to pay for concert tickets, movie tickets, Las Vegas shows, clubs, etc etc.

Re:Mathematically...

[devent]

I can point you to a lot of things, of equal value for people as the artists you mention. The problem is that different people value different things, I for one know only the Beatles, and don't really like their music (it's good music, but it's old and kind of boring).

My list would be:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=HDstarcraft#g/u
146,463,134 views, 384,895 subscribers.
http://www.collegehumor.com/
http://sitasingstheblues.com/
http://www.kernel.org/ (and of course all the Linux distributions and all the free open source tools)
and many more of course, I don't like to post now all of my bookmarks.

You should finally realizing that the people you list all are a tiny minority and that almost all works are created still either by professionals or by amateurs. The professionals are paid anyway for their work and the amateurs are creating for the fun of it.

Take for example a film. There are many people working to create a film, all are professionals. When the film is finished, it is released to the theatres and the people get paid. Then the DVD is released and the people get paid once more.

Now take out the copyright, what will happen? The film would be still be made, it would still be released to theatres and there would be still a DVD of it. The people who worked would get paid. But they would not be paid indefinitely, because after a while there would be cheaper DVDs from other who just copy the film, and you could download it everywhere for free. But that would not be the problem, because almost all people involved in the production of the film are paid once anyway.

So the outcome would be that the movie studios is pressured hard to create new movies, which they can sell to theatres and make new DVDs. The market would be very dynamic and the outcome would be that more films are made more efficient and there would be much more competition.

If you think I'm crazy, think again, history is on my side. That is exactly what happened in the 19th century in Germany, which did not had any copyright laws. In fact, that period of time is now known as the Golden Age where Germany transformed itself from an agriculture country to an industrial nation. It happened in the USA, too. Long ignored the USA the copyright of books that came from Europe, with the result that it transformed itself in a very short period of time to the powerful nation we know now.

Re:Mathematically...

[brit74]

Piracy, in reality, is simply the free market at work, balancing out prices that are higher than the actual value of the art being sold.

Your assumption here is that all piracy involves people who aren't willing to pay for it, and no piracy ever occurs when people are willing (in the absence of the piracy option) to pay for it. I know pirates who have said things like "Why are you paying for something that you can get for free on the internet". With that statement, they're admitting that it has nothing to do with price. It has to do with the fact that it's always better to pay nothing than pay something. In other words, even if you are willing to pay $20 for movie that only costs $5, you should always pirate it because piracy costs $0.

Re:Mathematically...

[migla]

Who do you fund? How do you decide what's worth funding and what isn't? What guarantees do you have of a quality result? How do you get the best stuff out to people (if this seems like a silly question, go wandering through the free apps in the Android market store - there's some great stuff off in the depths, but can you be bothered finding it)?

Talking about living wage for everyone, I meant to refer to "basic income". Sorry about the confusion. What I meant was that if society provided unconditional basic income that would cover basic necessities, then passionate people could devote themselves to their art.

With basic income, the question whether the number of people wanking off in front of their Internet all day instead of being productive members of society and earning a better living standard for themselves would be too high need answering beforehand, of course. So, we should perhaps move towards a model of basic income in small increments.

Re:Mathematically...

[migla]

Mathematically, I can also show that the best "value" to society is to take your car and house and give them to other people who will use them better. Are you willing to give them up now?

I think there are plenty of situations like this. Example: people shouldn't have to pay for concert tickets, movie tickets, Las Vegas shows, clubs, etc etc.

I don't have a car or house. You have points, but I wasn't talking about forcefully taking tangible things from the rich and giving them to the poor (and I'm not saying we should or shouldn't, but that's not what my argument is about). The difference between what you talk about - a house, car or even a concert on the one hand and digital information and culture on the other hand, is that you can copy the digital stuff.

Re:Mathematically...

[Americano]

Yes, you're right - reality television, which is pretty much the poster child for "notoriety-seeking behavior," has dramatically enriched and enlivened our culture. I can't wait until everything reaches that pinnacle of quality.

A free market requires mutually consenting exchanges of value for value. If you don't like paying for stuff, you're welcome to refuse to pay for it, and do without it. You do not have an inherent "right" to own the products of someone else's work, and you do not have an inherent "right" to dictate the prices for that work. You have the right to buy it at the price set by the creator if you find the price reasonable, or the right to decline to buy it, and live without it - or purchase an alternative from someone who is willing to sell a similar work under terms you find more reasonable. Until you understand the concept of mutual consent and its role in a free market, you have no business offering opinions on "how free markets work."

Re:Mathematically...

[Americano]

Starcraft videos? That's your "high quality culture"? Pray tell, what happens when nobody pays for games like Starcraft because "everything's free"? You think that game gets created?

College humor? Owned by CH Media - you think they're doing that with no expectation of getting paid? You're the product, my friend. They're not producing that website for free.

Sitasingstheblues - An animated retelling of an old Indian story, by a self-serving support of "free culture," who supports no copyright because that would allow her to use someone else's songs in her animations without paying them. Funny how "I want to reuse something someone else did," is cited as an example of all the "brilliant new culture" we're going to see as a result of this. Why couldn't she write her own music? Why couldn't she come up with a brand new story, not just reuse the story of Sita and Rama?

Kernel.org - you realize without copyright, the GPL would not work... right? It *relies* on copyright to provide any protection whatsoever. Do away with copyright (as you've argued repeatedly), and suddenly the Linux kernel, and all that open source software, is fair game for everybody to rip off with absolutely zero responsibility to their upstream code provider. Do you really want to see all your GPLv3 code tivo-ized?

Your arguments about film are inane - who's going to risk millions of dollars producing a movie when the finished product is "free to anybody who wants a copy"? Your citations of all the "great culture" we'd get for free if we abolished copyright amount to a bunch of retreads of existing creations by "innovative" people who can't come up with original songs or stories, and so borrow liberally from other creators and call their snarky send-ups of original content "new culture." Movie studios won't be "pressured to create new movies," movie studios will cease to exist, and youtube - with all its grainy, reality-tv-glory, will be the great culture of our age. Oh good, I can't wait to see 3 million remixes of the bedroom intruder song.

Re:Mathematically...

[Americano]

I'll use your own argument back at you: the sellers (artists/creators) don't have any "rights" to control who can or cannot "copy" their stuff. They either sell their thing of value (song/game/movie/etc) and let people do as they please with the CD/DVD, or don't sell it.

But that's NOT my argument that you're using, that's a straw man.

What I said was that your choices are to "buy under the terms set, live without that product, or buy a similar product from someone who sells under terms that you deem more fair." In other words, support the business model that you believe makes the most sense for you as a consumer.

Even doing away with legally-enforced blanket copyrights, a creator would be absolutely within his rights to ask you to sign a contract agreeing that you will not share copies of the digital work with anybody else without the authorization of the creator, as a condition of that sale. And you would be well within your rights to *decline* to sign that contract and continue shopping around, or you could negotiate better terms if you liked, or accept the terms as stated. But if you then broke that contract, the creator would be well within his rights to prosecute you under the law for breaching that contract. Copyright (in concept) is not a case of "taxpayer money protecting private profits" any more so than any other contract laws in practice today - you can certainly argue that current copyright terms are unreasonable as a result of intense and expensive lobbying on behalf of the middlemen (RIAA, MPAA, etc. etc.) who profit from controlling sales of created works, but you are not forced in any way to buy those works, or support the artists who sell using that model. Support indie filmmakers, indie artists, creative commons, open source. Nothing entitles you to something someone else created that you "really want" but "don't like the terms they're selling it for."

Get over that sense of entitlement ("I should be able to take a copy of anything I want because it's super cheap to copy"), because it's the absolute biggest thing that's slowing down the death of restrictive copyright: it gives the businesses interested in preserving the status quo targets to sue, and a way to pitch themselves as victims. Nothing forces people to release harshly-copyrighted creations today: you can creative-commons or "open source" it - distribute it with as permissive a license as you want. If you value uncopyrighted works, then patronize and support the people who create them under those permissive terms to encourage them to continue creating more. It's really that simple.

Also of note: Without copyright law, the GPL, creative commons, and other "permissive / free" copyright schemes doesn't exist. You okay with something you created being jacked for a national ad campaign that makes Microsoft a billion dollars, and being told, "HA, thanks for making our logo & ad music for free, sucker! We normally pay millions for graphics and music of this quality!" All of the free and permissive licensing/copyright schemes REQUIRE copyright to exist to have any enforceable terms whatsoever. Arguing that "abolishing" copyright is the solution is stupid, misguided, and incredibly short sighted.

Re:Hyprocrites

[bws111]

So what? The PSAs are not about things YOU create, they are about things OTHER people create (and own). Of course you own your own work, that is the law. They are not giving you a damn thing you don't already have. On the other hand, their T&C's are about their stuff, not yours. You know, the exact thing they are complaining about.

Not too useful

[bws111]

Maybe instead of TechDirt running some snarky contest which will achieve nothing they could actually ask people for real, workable, ideas on how the 'industry can adapt'. You know, something that doesn't involve stupid ideas like 'work for free' or 'rely on donations'.

Re:Not too useful

[TrekkieGod]

You know, I don't really have a solution myself, but I don't think that's relevant. What you're saying is, "I can't figure out how the scribe industry can survive now that we have the printing press, so we should outlaw the use of a printing press to create copies of books and require that every copy of a book be made by hand in order to artificially inflate the value of books and keep those scribes employed. We'll keep the printing press only for things that MUST be made quickly, like newspapers."

If the industry can't survive in a world with the technology where copies are made essentially for free, then that industry should die.

Re:Not too useful

[bws111]

You are talking about two entirely different things. We don't need scribes because we have the printing press. However, we still need (want) authors, editors, etc. The analog in music would be we don't need CD pressing factories. I don't see anyone arguing against that. However, we still need (want) musicians, engineers, etc.

Now, if your argument is that we DON'T need the music, film, whatever industries, that is fine. If you are satisfied with content that is produced outside of the industry you can enjoy that today. No-one needs to do anything. If everyone decides that that content is sufficient the industries will go away, and nothing can be done about that. However, what pirates are saying is that in fact they DO want the product created by the industry, they just don't want to pay for it or otherwise think they are entitled to it on their terms alone.

Re:Not too useful

[Obfuscant]

If the industry can't survive in a world with the technology where copies are made essentially for free, then that industry should die.

Then what would you have to make copies of?

There is a significant difference between the music industry and the scribe/printing press analogy you use. The scribes were not responsible for creating content, only copying it. The printing press did nothing to replace the content creators.

The "music industry" includes those that create the content that you want to copy for free. You can't replace the entire industry with a CD burner and a net connection, since the CD burner and net connection cannot create the content, only copy it.

Re:Not too useful

[desdinova 216]

there have been many ideas on how the industry can adapt. such as shortening the copyright restrictions to a more reasonable time frame than "forever" but The media companies don't want that. or should I say a certain media company doesn't want that.

Re:Not too useful

[virtualXTC]

Maybe instead of TechDirt running some snarky contest which will achieve nothing they could actually ask people for real, workable, ideas on how the 'industry can adapt'. You know, something that doesn't involve stupid ideas like 'work for free' or 'rely on donations'.

Maybe instead of insisting that somebody is doing something the wrong way, you should fix it your self. Or, maybe you could just lean to see the value in an anti-propaganda campaign.

Re:Not too useful

[Americano]

I've said this elsewhere in this thread, but I really want to repeat it because I think it's important, and always gets overlooked in these arguments by people who think that "I can make a million copies of an MP3 for free, why should I pay anything for it?"

COST TO DUPLICATE != COST TO PRODUCE

The two costs are absolutely not the same. Cost to duplicate shrinks over time, and is absolutely subject to reduction by improvements in technology. Cost to produce will *never* reach (or even, really, approach) zero. It will always require time, money, and materials to create instruments to play, to learn how to play those instruments, and record the playing of those instruments. Even with a perfectly virtualized system, until somebody comes up with a way of making us immortal, time will always be valuable.

Re:Not too useful

[BabyDuckHat]

There will always be musicians. It's the bloated middle-men that are dying. I don't think that's a bad thing.

Re:Not too useful

[JonySuede]

What happen when music writing is totally automated ?

Music only seems magical on the surface, but it has a number of parameters that can describe it in a probabilistic way. (I refer you to the series of paper from Nick Didkovsky for a limited (but grandiose in 2001) implementation strategy) Programs that can imitate the composition style of someone already exist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_music#Statistical_style_modeling), we only need a good style mutator (I gargantuan task , but a priori, there is no reason why it should be impossible) and we will be able to generate all the music that can exist.

In some ways, it has already happened; name me a new style of music that "appeared" in the last 10 years, and I will name you someone pioneering that style somewhere between [T-1000y,T-10y], and if I don't, well, then I win a new style to explore, and I will gladly apologize.

Re:Not too useful

[godrik]

I agree with you: "the cost to duplicate is different than the cost to produce".

However, you are missing two different points:
-Without any legal consideration, you can get the object for free. Why should you pay? When you buy biscuit from two different stores, sometimes, one store is significantly cheaper than the other one for the same product (same brand, same package). So I pick the cheapest one. The point of GP is, "I can get the same thing for cheaper (and eventually better once you consider the lack of DRM), why should I pay more?" actually it is not "cheaper" it is "virtually free".
-The second point is that you pay neither the cost to duplicate nor the cost to produce when you buy a cd (or ). The cost in the store IS unrelated. It is roughtly priced according to "whatever price I think will sell best". And at some point it will be sold for nothing or will even be thrown away if it takes to much place.

I would be COMPLETELY happy to pay collectively the production cost. Once the production cost is obtained, the content falls in public domain. But that model won't live because it is so difficult to enforce.

Actually that is the problem with the current model: It REQUIRES to be enforced, otherwise it collapses. Yet it is so easy to circumvent (because duplication is free) and many people can circumvent it with it collapsing.

If you take a comparison with making bread. You can produce bread yourself but it takes time and ingredient. The monetary gain from making bread yourself is too small for people to start making bread on their own. They could steal bread from the baker but it is difficult.

I do not think the current model can live. There are too many forces against it. That's why you see people trying to push alternative models like "you work for free" (most likely won't work) or "pre-production based funding" such as "patronage" or "on demand" production which, I believe, is the only model that can work. That looks much better than "put a cop in every house", or "put so many DRMs people won't be able to copy", or "sue a quarter of the planet".

I think you need this

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Everyone needs to see this PSA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

Re:I think you need this

[AmiMoJo]

Let's be honest, if you could you would: http://3.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kpcvvy3eqK1qz4a62o1_500.jpg

FYI: PSA TLA DEF

[camperdave]

Just in case anyone was wondering (as I was, initially). PSA = Public Service Announcement.

Re:FYI: PSA TLA DEF

[rioki]

Yea, I had to use Wikipedia... Google was a miss...

Re:Hyprocrites

[Dunbal]

Again you are confusing anti-copyright and piracy. This is why you keep banging your head into the wall. They are not the same thing. Yesterday in my country, "The Matrix" was available on one of the cable channels. I watched part of it, and fell asleep. Say today I went to a torrent site and downloaded "The Matrix" and watched the part that I missed. How, exactly, has this prevented:

1) Warner Brothers, Village Roadshow, the Wachowski brothers, Keanu Reeves and everyone else from making their royalties?

2)The cable company from selling me its subscription, the distributor from selling rights to air the movie to the cable company, and any advertisers from selling commercials in the movie?

See? I don't disagree with copyright. Everyone here has made money for work done, and rightfully so. But I don't disagree with piracy either. Why the hell should I pay $20 to watch a movie I have already seen countless times, has already been on TV countless times, and will be on TV again countless times? If you are dumb enough to do it, go ahead. But this whole argument about me putting thousands of people out of work and costing the economy and the studios trillions of dollars just because I wanted to watch the last 20 minutes of the Matrix is utter bullshit.

PSA?

[SleazyRidr]

What exactly is a PSA? My google search has suggested prostate-specific antigen, professional sports authenticator, professional skaters association and the Phillipine Sports Association of Texas. None of which seem to make much sense in the context...

Re:PSA?

[Kneo24]

Public Service Announcement

Re:PSA?

[Beorytis]

It's Pressure Swing Adsorption, a gas separation process.

Re:PSA?

[jburroug]

Public
Service
Announcement

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

Cheers,

Re:PSA?

[Fallen Kell]

Since you didn't put up the sarcasm tags, it stands for (P)ublic (S)ervice (A)nnouncement....

Re:PSA?

[SleazyRidr]

Thank you. I feel a little less stupid.

Re:PSA?

[GumphMaster]

Took me a moment to work this out also. I can only assume that "PSA" is a common term in the writer's world. Is it really that difficult to spell it out the first time you use an acronym or initialism in an article? The difficulty in determining the meaning of PSA (public service announcement) is compounded by the observation that the whole exercise is one of crass self-interest on the part of large corporations, not employees, and not serving the public in any way.

"All entries become the property of our sponsors."

[westlake]

They also looked at the fine print on this 'pro-copyright' contest, and discovered that in entering, you agreed to give up your copyright.

My god, what a surprise.

This has been the rule in print and broadcast media for generations --- ask your great-grandad about the bike he won in a cub scout photo contest sponsored by "Boy's Life."

The sponsors demand this because they don't want to negotiate rights with amateurs. The kid gets his prize. The promotion stays on track and on budget. The End.

Re:"All entries become the property of our sponsor

[mandelbr0t]

IANAL, but doesn't a minor require parental consent to enter into a contract with an adult?

It really disturbs me to see the exploitation of naive children being used to propagate misinformation. This contest is a form of brainwashing, and the Fox News types are just going to say, "Awww. That's so cute. Let's do what the kids say."

exclusive, and draconain (c) places works at risk.

[wierd_w]

For a stellat example, look at the systematic destruction of works by the BBC from the 60s and 70s.

There were over 200 episodes of Dr Who alone (there were many other series besides that one in the burn bin) that were destroyed without backup copies, because the bbc did not have room to store them, and because the copyright licensing of those episodes required outside stations and studios to return *all* copies sent to them.

Currently, only 20 or so episodes remain totally MIA from the first doctor series, due almost exclusively to painstaking reconstruction from poor quality pirate recordings collected by the viewing public when the series ran.

The only reason approx 180 of the 200 were recovered, was BECAUSE of "piracy".

Something to consider, given the cultural impact of that series in the UK, as well as in other countries.

If nothing else, rampant piracy protects popular and influential works from willful destruction, by massively replicating the number of copies. This alone is reason to support personal use piracy.

Re:"All entries become the property of our sponsor

[bws111]

They have poor reading ability, because the rules do not say that. You do not give up your copyright by entering. You agree that if you win, and they pay you, you will either consider your entry a work for hire or you will agree to transfer the copyright to them.

Re:"All entries become the property of our sponsor

[bws111]

Yes, and the rules plainly state that if a minor wins their parent or legal guardian must send a notarized letter.

Re:"All entries become the property of our sponsor

[mandelbr0t]

In that case, one can only hope that the parents are less naive than the children... However, that is certainly not the case currently.

Re:Occupy this

[PopeRatzo]

-1, Redundant

-1, Troll

Re:exclusive, and draconain (c) places works at ri

[wierd_w]

I suggest you look at the issue more closely. Doctow who was only one of many that was destroyed in this fashion.

If you want another historical instance of how keeping all the eggs in one basket is bad, look at the ancient library of alexandria. The only books to survive the fire were either in the sub basement, or "pirated" by arabian scholars.

We owe much of our knowledge of antiquity to ancient "software pirates."

Re:exclusive, and draconain (c) places works at ri

[mandelbr0t]

This is an excellent point that is rarely considered. Archival of creative works is a public good. We'd know nothing about our ancestors if they'd encrypted everything they wrote down.

Re:exclusive, and draconain (c) places works at ri

[wierd_w]

Actually I am more a ST nerd, but DW is nice variety.

I was more approaching it from the "70 years from now, how will cultural historians view the "dalek mania" phenomenon of the 70s in the UK, given the destruction of the original material" angle.

Much like current classical period historians lament the loss of "trite, usless shite" like the vulgar satyr comedies alluded to by ancient historians.

Re:exclusive, and draconain (c) places works at ri

[chronoglass]

more than 75% of em did encrypt it! took years to figure out "snake, sun, dancing guy, boat, snake" meant "please drive through"

Re:exclusive, and draconain (c) places works at ri

[wierd_w]

Only true for asiatic languages, egyptian pictographs, cuneform, and ancient mayan.

We still wouldn't be able to read egyptian without the rosetta stone "PSA" proclaiming the treaty between egypt and greece, btw.

Get David Lynch to do Both!

[Greyfox]

David Lynch makes one hell of a PSA! I'd love to see his take on both sides of the issue!

Don't copy that floppy still works just fine!

[Eightbitgnosis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up863eQKGUI
See? Still perfectly relevant to today's youth

There's actually an creative opportunity here

[Solandri]

After the Tienanmen massacre in 1989, the government solicited propaganda from the public in support of the crackdown. One of these was a poem anonymously submitted to the state newspaper, praising the government for its actions ending the protests. It was published, and only then was it discovered that if you read the Chinese characters diagonally, it said Deng Xaioping must pay for his crimes against the people.

Re:Gather round...

[ConaxConax]

The game requires a CD be in the drive to play, so it is pretty useless for that.

You should be able to get a no-cd crack easily enough. I hope I'm not telling you something too simple that you are already aware of, but just in case, I think it is viable, but do not know the legality. On the other hand, you could rip the CD on a separate computer and mount the ISO, though that might be heavy for a netbook to do this and also play at the same time.

Also I like sites like GoG.com which sell old games with no DRM, but that might not be such a consolation if you already own the agmes and do not want to repurchase.

Re:exclusive, and draconain (c) places works at ri

[Macgrrl]

Did you know that Warner Brothers deliberately destroyed the animation cells for most of their back catalog in a fire in the desert because of the same storage issues (and the fact that acetate is highly flamable and therefore a fire risk to store around celuoid and silver nitrate film stocks).

If you'd ever wondered why production cells for classic cartoons were so valuable, that's why. Even though they used hundreds of thousands of them to make the cartoons, most of the remaining cells ar eones that were taken home by staff or visitors as souvineers.

Re:exclusive, and draconain (c) places works at ri

[blair1q]

Well, Dr. Who is one of my favorites, too, and I'd be hard pressed to vote against a law requiring every VCR, DVD, and Blu-Ray recorder in the world to be tuned to it and recording it just to make sure it was kept safe from oblivion.

But that won't happen, so I have an opportunity to be reasonable.

Re:exclusive, and draconain (c) places works at ri

[blair1q]

Actually, they reused the acetate, and destroyed most frames by washing them off to be reused.

And while you find value in them, most people would think that such things are indeed trash, and the monetary value they now hold is mostly because they are rare.

Although it'd be interesting if one of da Vinci's brushes came up for auction, I see no reason for him to have been induced to preserve them all.

Re:exclusive, and draconain (c) places works at ri

[Insightfill]

For a stellar example, look at the systematic destruction of works by the BBC from the 60s and 70s.

An additional reason: when the ability to record and play back a previous episode because feasible, the unions responsible for the support staff (lighting, sound, etc.) for the live shows became rightfully worried about losing work. There were specific contractual requirements that recordings be destroyed after a certain length of time.

The challenge is that at the time I'm certain it wasn't obvious what was culturally significant and what wasn't. I can remember paying $50-$100 for 1 inch wide, one hour long, Ampex reel-to-reel video tape spools in the mid 70s. Given the sum-total of all BBC broadcasting from that decade, I can believe that trying to preserve ANY tapes must have been a bear.

I find the "British Invaders" podcast interesting from time-to-time as they discuss some of the challenges of finding old episodes of BBC (and ITV) shows. I remember one discussion where they apparently had staff that would go around weekly to each office and ask for any old tapes to be recycled - quite a few shows were lost because the producer wasn't around to specifically "DON'T take that tape!"

Copyright as written not compatible with computers

[Fned]

It just isn't.

Copyright as it was originally concieved, and in every evolutionary step since then, has depended intimately on the specific limitations of physical media.

Computers are designed explicitly to allow information to transcend the limitations of physical media.

It's all about access restriction.

Access restriction is what makes information valuable. You won't pay for information you already have access to, even if it's very, very useful or desirable. Once you have it, buying access to it holds no value for you. If you lose access, but still want the info, you'll be ready to pay again. There is no difference in the amount a person will pay for -- that is to say, very literally, the value of -- a copy of information you don't want, and a copy of information you already have.

Access restriction is inherent in physical copies of information. Creating analog backups is imperfect and loses information slowly over time; creating copies similar to the originals is an industrial endeavor with not only significant costs, but physical traceability. If you buy a book, and you really want to, you can track it back to where it was printed and go there. You can only read a book if you're near it, you can only play a record you can touch (or command a robot to touch, whatever). If I make a million copies of something, I've created a million times the value I started with, because there's a million times more access to the work.

Access restriction is NOT inherent in digital copies of information. Identical copies can be created and destroyed indefinitely without the slightest loss or measurable cost, by whoever has the equipment to access them in the first place. A bit cannot be traced; any information you might use to differentiate one copy from another is inherently additional information, and can in turn be copied or removed. Anyone with access to the computer system of a person with a copy, also has access to that copy. Or any number of copies. If I make a million copies of a file, I have not created a million times the value I started with.

Computers force us to confront an interesting truth about information: an individual copy of information has zero value. The creation of that information has value, and access to that information has value, and THAT'S IT. The value of a physical copy lies in granting access to the possessor. If I can't see someone play music whenever I want, but I can get a recording, that recording has value. If I CAN listen to someone play music whenever want, wherever I want, just by waving my hand, a recording of them has no value to me. If a million people want access to the file, and I make them all pay first, only then is the file valuable.

But:

Access control on digital information is essentially binary. If you give someone access, they have it, and if you take it away, they don't; and, immediately, EVERYONE with access to that party ALSO has access. DRM tries really hard to pretend that you can give and deny access to information simultaneously to the same party, but it's just a shadow play. It relies 100% on social factors to work (I don't want to break the law, I don't mind this business model, I'd rather spend the time to do something else than crack this or find someone who will). Because in the digital world, you can't grant and deny access to the same party simultaneously. Not really. You can limit access, but if the degree of access I want is the degree of access you're giving me, I've got it, full stop. And so does everyone who as access to ME.

The ONLY meaningful access restriction to digital works in the modern age is at the point of creation. The only reasonable business model is not to release a work to anyone until it is paid for, or not to CREATE it until it is paid for.

Interestingly, this is, in fact, how nearly all "Big Content" is created already. The budget for a movie doesn't come from future ticket sales, it comes from ticket sales from previous movies Big-name n

Re:"All entries become the property of our sponsor

[mysidia]

Notarization with a parent signature doesn't mean the kid isn't allowed by law to back out of the contract later.

Re:exclusive, and draconain (c) places works at ri

[xhrit]

It was the Star Wars Holiday Special that survived due to piracy...

Honesty and piracy

[mhollis]

The real issue here is that NBC Universal started a contest in the schools, and created a "front" to divert everyone's attention from the fact that this is a corporately-sponsored contest, where the only winners will be those who agree with the corporation's goals.

That's dishonest and this is why this contest is seen as "evil." Presumably NBC Universal will benefit from a whole bunch of free Public Service Announcements made by these people who were duped into thinking this contest was honest.

With respect to piracy, the real danger to the studios is not in the home user burning a copy of a DVD. The real danger is from organized criminals who will literally pull up to a duplication facility loading dock with a semitrailer and steal the duplication apparatus to make copies from the original master disc. Or the Chinese government officials, sworn Party members all -- and "untouchable" because of that -- who reverse-engineer the original master and crank out millions of copies that can undersell the official studio version (because they're not paying the studio). Go down to Chinatown or Canal Street in NYC and you'll see these pirated copies all over. And these illegal copies often come out before the official release date from the studios.

But now, the studios see the writing on the wall. DVD player-recorders did not have "sufficient" copy protection built in, so home "piracy" was fairly simple. So the studios all refused to allow for a high definition system without "sufficient" "safeguards." And the studios were so intransigent that we did not have a standard for high-definition DVDs until very recently. Meanwhile, the Internet has gotten faster (despite the fact that cable and telco companies have done everything they can to not increase speeds in the United States because they like collecting money without needing to create better infrastructure) and most people will simply bypass the new Blu-Ray standard by acquiring their media through electronic delivery, instead of by buying some soon-to-be obsolete player and the media it plays.

So all of the studios' dreams of being able to lock down their content (with Blu-Ray) have been for naught. Home hard drives are big enough to contain many high-definition films and consumers can build their own libraries of the films they like without needing to rip (and bypass copy "protection" schemes) from discs. Delivery is now digital and over the Internet. DVD stores are going the way of the record store. And companies like Apple and Netflix will be the distribution channel and the studios don't control them. These studio executives all sit around their offices and meeting rooms and worry about Mom and Pop, Timmy and Mary sharing their movies with their friends who have not paid for the movie.

But the real threat is elsewhere. Right now, in Romania, Ukraine, Russia or China, there is an organized criminal who has hacked into their computer system where the unprotected film is sitting. And they are downloading everything on the computer they have hacked into. And I would not be surprised that the computer in question is actually editing the studio's film. This criminal will certainly be able to release the film as soon as it hits the theatres to consumers as pirated downloads.

So what NBC Universal is trying to do here is to find a way to get Mom, Pop, Timmy and Mary to not share their movies with Dick and Jane across the street.

Pathetic.

Re:"All entries become the property of our sponsor

[dyingtolive]

I think the reason why this is made such a big deal out of is because of the fact that it's not a picture you're turning in for a bike and losing copyright on. It's PRO-COPYRIGHT propaganda that the creator LOSES the copyright on should they win. For one, there's a certain irony behind that, and for another, it also implies that the only way to monetize your copyright on something is to sell it to a corporation. "Look at me, I'm a good Citizen, I've turned all my works over to the nearest Ministry of Performances. They even saw fit to grace me with a pittance this time!"

It's "I'm producing this bit about how awesome copyright is. Now that I'm done going on about it, you know, talking about how helpful it is and conducive toward innovation, and how swell and important it is for you to be able to possess rights pertaining to it's creation, I'm letting a corporation hiding behind a city government take it from me." And the children targeted wouldn't understand what they're even doing. I know I didn't understand copyright when I was a child. I don't understand copyright law now, and probably never fully will. But this PSA contest; It's parasitic.

Obligatory IT Crowd Anti-Piracy PSA

[the_saint1138]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=964MLq1db4s

Piracy is most definitely evil

[SleepyJohn]

Certainly more so than listening to a song without paying extortion money to a greedy, corrupt middleman who treats his artists even more despicably than his customers.

Arguably less so than cynically using a taxpayer-funded authority to indoctrinate vulnerable children with a creed that benefits only the greedy, corrupt middleman. And I use the word 'creed' quite deliberately, as these odious people are trying to whip up a worldwide mindless 'anti-piracy' fervour that is quite worryingly reminiscent of the kind of religious hysteria that saw witches drowned (if they float they are witches, if they sink they are not) and saints burnt at the stake.

Listening to a song or watching a movie without permission from the MAFIAA is just that, no more. It is not theft on the high seas, rape of female passengers or mass murder. When a man is given lemons he can either scream and shout and throw them out of his pram or he can make lemonade from them. I know I am far from being the only one who is fed up to the back teeth with these media mogul morons who are so busy frantically sueing old grannies and dead people for singing Happy Birthday that they cannot see this. As a law-abiding person of some years I have become so disgusted with their antics that I feel absolutely no moral obligation whatever to pay them for anything. And if enough people feel like that the MAFIAA is doomed. When all the physical media shops are closed due to the encroaching 21st Century, and all the people are banned from using the internet for fear they might listen to a crappy song or two, how are these cretins going to make money I wonder?

Talk about killing the golden goose while shooting yourself in the foot just prior to sawing off the branch you're sitting on. You couldn't make it up, could you? Fortunately for the great mass of ordinary, civilised folk the internet is rapidly evolving into a self-healing mechanism that will simply bypass those who try to damage its underlying purpose - which is to serve those ordinary, civilised folk. I used to keep bees, and if something nasty got into their hive that they could not eject or kill they would cover it with layer upon layer of tree resin. When it died of suffocation and starvation it did not even putrify and stink out the hive - it simply no longer existed in their lives. And even a great fat mouse could do little against 70,000 pissed-off bees.

The real pirates in this scenario are the media middlemen who see their years of unbroken, corrupting monopoly evaporate like the morning dew, and they are simply too stupid and brain-addled greedy to do anything rational about it. Like for instance - horrors. dare I say it out loud? - service the unbelievably huge and captive and easily accessed market that digital technology has presented them with. Or will they end up like the mouse in the beehive - no longer existing in people's lives?