Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Pirate Party Dragging BREIN To Court
An anonymous reader writes "Last week the Dutch Pirate Party refused to take down their proxy. Then, avoiding the Pirate Party in court, the entertainment industry organization BREIN obtained an injunction against the party's The Pirate Bay proxy (now a list of alternative proxies). After receiving additional demands from BREIN on Saturday night, including one to censor their generic proxy, the Dutch Pirate Party decided to take them to court, to strike the order and convince the judge of the need for due process and the freedom to inform."
From the press release: "The penalties imposed by the court are 4 times higher than those ordered upon the large commercial ISPs XS4ALL and Ziggo..."
As much as I like to see this kind of "stick it to the man" attitude, this is merely the exploitation of a loophole. This will not last. I'll be very interested in seeing what they come up with next though.
How can you be forced to "take down" a pointer? Not only is tpb not hosting anything but pointers... but the proxy is just a pointer to a pointer... *boggle*
This is how it works in a liberal democracy. The side with the most people wins. Donate now to your favorite free speech or pirate cause, because that money is needed to buy more lobbyists, TV spots and print ads than the opposition.
“It is time that the industry attack dogs understand that you can’t trample on people’s freedoms for your own monetary gain,” Pirate Party board member blauwbaard says.
Yep, blauwbaard. I thought blackbeard was a pirate, and bluebeard was a serial killing landlubber, but either way -- do you really wanna fuck with these guys?
The entertainment industry spent good money to buy those courts, and you DARE to presume you can just come in with no money and use them AGAINST their benefactors?!?!?
I say good day to you, sir! GOOD DAY, SIR!
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
"The penalties imposed by the court". On whom ? For what ?!
Instead of pioneering new, convenient, usable digital ways to distribute content (like free, ad-supported internet streaming of standard-def content over, say, Youtube or Vimeo), the Entertainment industry seems determined to forcibly shut down any alternative, ad-hoc digital distribution means that has sprung up (like P2P & Torrents). Lets suppose for a moment that the Entertainment Industry manages to shut it all down for good... All of it. Really ALL OF IT. No more ways to get free dl links, free movie streaming, or any other way left to download/view Hollywood content online without paying. Will the industry's sales and profits suddenly go up? Perhaps by a measly few percent (say 2 - 4%), as some of the people who used to get stuff free off the internet now grudgingly head to the entertainment store to buy a DVD or BluRay instead, or buy a few movies/shows on iTunes-like online services. But what about the people who really used to love using Torrents and such? They will very likely stop consuming Hollywood movies/U.S. TV Shows/MPAA-RIAA content altogether. Can you live without consuming this stuff at all? Yes, you very much can. Do you miss out on anything doing this? Only if you are a 14 year old teenager who thinks that to be "hip" or "in the loop", you need to see the latest incarnation of the Hollywood trash all your friends at school are talking about. ---- With its latest actions, the Entertainment Industry has proven once more that it is composed of "9 Parts Business/Industry" and "1 Part Entertainment". It has also proven that it lives decades in the past, business-model wise, and that it simply cannot make effective use of the internet as a means of distribution. The likely result of all this? The generation that grew up with P2P and Torrents will probably hate Hollywood/MPAA/RIAA for the rest of their lives, and likely consume as little Hollywood/U.S. made content as possible. It will probably do this just to hurt the MPAA/RIAA back.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
If only we were able to have an organized party like this in the U.S.
Our only choices are "In the pocket of the MPAA" and "In the pocket of the MPAA"...oh, wait...
Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
Except there are ample DVD's and BluRay's in my home that would most probably haven't been bought, had I not downloaded the movie (which is still legal in The Netherlands) first to see if I like it.
No "preview", far less sales. Two sides of a coin....
# touch universe # chmod +rwx universe #
What if it's not about raking in a few more nickels in the short term? The means to record, edit and and publish both music and video of good quality are now available to mere hobbyists. If the publishers can no longer control the outlets, their importance will dwindle. At least over in Germany, we're already seeing movies that were crowd-sourced or created by hobbyists on the big screens of movie theaters.
Yeah, except that i won't be going to see the band I didn't discovered through torrent because i couldn't afford (or even find) the cd's, nor going to see the crappy 8th secuel of a movie because I couldn't watch the previous ones when they were on the cinema, and couldn't rent afterwards because there isn't any place nearby (or online) where i can watch them at a reasonable price/quality ratio.
It's not a matter of money, it's a matter of control. The 10 companies that control most of the movie and music industries are used to controlling what culture we have access to, through radio, cinemas and stores. The end battle is not fighting piracy, but regaining control of the distribution methods. They are fricking scared that anyone in their backyards can create a movie and distribute it to the world without their consent and control.
That's one side of it, the other mistake they are making is that the younger generation sees them as their ENEMY!
Copyright is a dirty word. Copyright enforcement even dirtier. How about the term "Copyright Industry"? If you'd used that in the 1980s, people would have gone "what?"
2/5 - Not believable enough that you would go so far as to put all the "trigger" words among your target audience in bold.
That said...
Oh, so you mean that somehow the RIAA/MPAA should be concerned about the thieves (not even gonna try and mince words here) who "love using Torrents and such", that steal all their content for free is going to now be suddenly worried about losing...that ZERO-profit section of their consumer base?
Yes, they should - Because this entire discussion misses the simple fact that the "audience" refers to the product, not the customers. the fact that the studios can get the cows to produce a bit of milk before taking them to slaughter (and yes, pedants, I realize you don't generally eat dairy cows) just frosts the cake.
With TV, they made that fact glaringly obvious by having well-delineated commercial breaks. With movies, they simply make the ads more subtle, part of the actual content (or did you actually take "Transformers: Dark Side of GM Product Placement" as anything more than a feature-length ad? Not that that differs from the original in any way, since the cartoon existed only to hawk crappy toys, mind you).
You know, I don't want to watch ads for free. I would say the studios should pay us to watch them.
you are missing the point. the point is to convert "non-paying costumers" (I love mincing words) into paying costumers, not evolving their busniess model isn't going to accomplish that.
You don't get the crux of my argument. The Entertainment Industry is trying to shut all these pirate sites down, it seems, in the hope that the "Zero Paying" customers using them will have NO OTHER OPTION LEFT after the fact, than to go buy DVDs/BluRays, or shell out on paid Digital Downloads, or get a Cable/Digital/IP TV subscription. What they don't seem to understand at all, however, is that they may seriously ANGER this category of consumer with their agressive legal actions, and that they will thus potentially alienate 10s of millions of potential paying viewers users from consuming Hollywood/MPAA/RIAA content altogether. Think about it logically for a moment: You take someone's casual P2P/Torrents fun/hobby away from them, and they will do what in return? Run to the nearest entertainment store and buy 5 DVDs/BluRays you published? Call up the cable company and say "Quick! Give me a 60 Dollar/month all-included cable package!" --- That's just not going to happen in my view. If you shut even casual (occasional) P2P/Torrent use down, the people using these services won't want to pay you a dime in return, or contribute to you making greater profits. You'll simply create millions of fervently anti-Hollywood, anti-MPAA, anti-RIAA or anti-BREIN types, who really, really, really hate your industry's guts. --- Also, who do you think camps out on the internet all day, looking for any and all tidbits of info on new movies, and spreading all the positive advance-word-of-mouth about them? As far as I can see, it is the same crowd that casually uses P2P/Torrents. Knee that crowd in the balls, and you'll kill perhaps 75% of the internet-buzz about upcoming movies. You'll put your film teasers/trailers out there, and instead of 25 million people watching them and creating free buzz about them, now there's only 3 - 4 million left, and no significant buzz is created at all. Your movie hits the theatres and tanks at the box-office, because you've totally and completely aliented the movie-freaks who would have promoted your movie to others online.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
Downloading anything is perfectly legal in the Netherlands. Do not assume the rest of the world is ruled by companies like in the US, despite this news.
Not too long ago we could download pre-programmed selections over the airwaves. It was called tv. I fail to see much difference between that and TPB, except that the latter is on-demand. Funny how the industry was able to survive on ad revenue from TV but never figured out how to make the transition to the Internet.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Actually, they should be. Because those thieves often pay for things that support the people who hold up the *AAs... They attend concerts, buy memorabilia and swag and act as walking advertisements for the artists who create the product the AAs spend so much time and money protecting.
I don't mind that they protect the content. I *do* care they they have bought and paid for a system that operates in a "guilty until proven innocent" system where all they have to do is *accuse* someone of being a thief or being an accomplice to thieving to get what they want. The AAs can start legal action and sue the *downloaders* all they want, and that's perfectly allowable, legal, and nobody will complain... But when they can force entire domains offline because someone posts a link to some content without having to get so much as a warrant, that's over the line. That's why it's a problem.
But, I guess we'll see. Some artists have embraced the new world of digital distribution. Let's see how they do.
Even if you don't want to mince words. Putting that in bold (veeery smart, you are technologically capable, hein?) doesn't make it more true either.
Well, far less... Not for people like me. For me, most movies are not worth it to watch a second time, let alone buy a dvd. Instead, I'll just watch what's on tv, borrow some dvds or pirate it.
It doesn't actually CONTAIN the content, but merely a location to GET the content.
It points to the content, not the content itself.
A pointer.
...I don't mind that they protect the content. I *do* care they they have bought and paid for a system that operates in a "guilty until proven innocent" system where all they have to do is *accuse* someone of being a thief or being an accomplice to thieving to get what they want. The AAs can start legal action and sue the *downloaders* all they want, and that's perfectly allowable, legal, and nobody will complain... But when they can force entire domains offline because someone posts a link to some content without having to get so much as a warrant, that's over the line. That's why it's a problem.
But, I guess we'll see. Some artists have embraced the new world of digital distribution. Let's see how they do.
I agree that the approach to resolution is a problem. This "issue" is a river with a broken dam, flowing out of control. *AA sees it as a river with all their profits spilling out everywhere. So they send 100 people to fix the dam and plug ALL the leaks. The problem is 85% of those people have absolutely NO experience building or repairing dams, so needless to say, you're going to some "let's just nuke it and vaporize all the water!" ideas coming forth.
But what about the people who really used to love using Torrents and such? They will very likely stop consuming Hollywood movies/U.S. TV Shows/MPAA-RIAA content altogether. Can you live without consuming this stuff at all? Yes, you very much can. Do you miss out on anything doing this? Only if you are a 14 year old teenager who thinks that to be "hip" or "in the loop", you need to see the latest incarnation of the Hollywood trash all your friends at school are talking about.
Oh bullshit. Of all the things I could have been reading or watching or listening or playing games or doing some hobby or going somewhere or doing something I decided to sit down to watch that show. And I didn't just hit the "on" switch to gaze at whatever is on either, I specifically went online and got that show. Do I need it? Hell no, it's entertainment but I don't strictly speaking need most of the things in my life. You're just trying to belittle everyone that watches anything mainstream claiming they're only watching this turd because it's free. Your attitude is exactly the same as those old farts that didn't like how their kids were listening to this rock&roll trash. Sometimes my tastes are narrow, but if a fantasy-move like Lord of the Rings is a mainstream hit I don't have to hate it to be the art snob. I like some of that shit, so sue me.
However, the days when I would adjust my life to the TV schedule or even to physically be at the TV is long gone. If I want it out on my TV, my computer in a window while I do something else, my tablet, my phone, my media server for everything in the house, at a cabin, in a car player, whatever I want it to be up to me where and when I watch it. There was a time when we could time- and format-shift it, but they tried to make it go away. On top of that they want to surveillance everything I do to make sure there's none of their holy bits inside, and I don't like that one bit. I don't like being puppeteered in my own, stop selling me things with strings attached. It was yours, now it's mine, go away and let me do with it as I please. I'd vote Pirate Party any day and I'd still try to fund stuff I like, I know gratitude doesn't put food on the table.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Instead of pioneering new, convenient, usable digital ways to distribute content (like free, ad-supported internet streaming of standard-def content over, say, Youtube or Vimeo), the Entertainment industry seems determined to forcibly shut down any alternative, ad-hoc digital distribution means that has sprung up (like P2P & Torrents).
What about Hulu, Crackle, Vevo, etc? Aren't those exactly what you're asking for?
Will the industry's sales and profits suddenly go up? Perhaps by a measly few percent (say 2 - 4%), as some of the people who used to get stuff free off the internet now grudgingly head to the entertainment store to buy a DVD or BluRay instead, or buy a few movies/shows on iTunes-like online services.
I think you're pulling numbers out of your ass.
The generation that grew up with P2P and Torrents will probably hate Hollywood/MPAA/RIAA for the rest of their lives, and likely consume as little Hollywood/U.S. made content as possible. It will probably do this just to hurt the MPAA/RIAA back.
That's possible, but I doubt it. Just talk to a few random people, and you'll find that you share absolutely nothing in common in them. They don't give a shit about your concerns, and you probably don't give a shit about their concerns. My sister is one of those anti-vaccine, pro-organic people. She loves Apple and all of her iProducts. If you listen to her, all of the world's problems revolve around Monsanto, vaccines, and Windows PCs. She doesn't give a shit about patent trolls, DRM, Sony rootkits, or open source. Do you really think my sister is going to give a shit about your beef with the MPAA or RIAA?
The older geeks here might remember. Back in the 80s, our politicians didn't give half a shit about environment. The forest died, they ignored it. People protested, they ignored it. All because the industry was fearmongering that any environmental laws would threaten "Germany as an industry location". The sky was falling, companies were supposed to leave Germany in droves if laws were passed that dared to order filters for the pests they pumped into our environment.
And behold, a party came into existence that had very few agendas safe one: Environment. And the second time they stood in elections, they gained a few seats in the parliament. And it grew because the established parties continued to ignore the issue. And what a joke that party was! People who didn't have a clue about politics, or so it seemed, they came in jeans instead of suits and didn't know how to "behave". And the longer they were ignored, the bigger the party got.
30 years later the Greens are an established force in pretty much every parliament in Europe. In some countries they are or were already part of the government. The "big players" now have to deal with another party that siphons votes away from them, and as much as they'd love to, they can't really get rid of them anymore. The Greens became part of the political landscape in Europe.
History repeats itself now. The issue now is privacy instead of environment, but the cards are played exactly the same way. Privacy is eliminated and ignored by the established parties, despite protests, citing the threat of losing jobs in the entertainment industry if we don't eliminate freedom and the right to privacy. People don't like that, or even oppose it to the extreme. And a party is formed that you actually know very little of besides one thing: It opposes this.
And if the established parties continue to ignore what people actually want from them, they'll soon have to deal with yet another party sitting around in parliament cutting into their share of the cake. I cannot help but wish for history to repeat itself.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Oh, so you mean that somehow the RIAA/MPAA should be concerned about the thieves (not even gonna try and mince words here)
You just did. Theft deprives someone of their property, copyright infringement does not. Shoplifting a CD is stealing music, taking a file that someone else paid for and shared is not. Rather than "mincing words" you're choosing incorrect and inflammatory terminology. When you have to resort to that, your argument is an automatic failure.
All hands on deck for an emergency board meeting to discuss how we're going to deal with "customers" who weren't paying a dime before that are not going to pay a dime in the future...
Research says that pirates are the media companies' best customers, spending far more money than non-pirates. Piracy sells media.
Which is exactly why the MAFIAA hates file sharing -- it benefits the indies. Thanks to cheap recording and the internet, musicians no longer need the RIAA labels, and neither do their customers. The RIAA has radio, indie bands do not.
The MPAA must be shaking in its boots after Star Wreck - In The Pirkinning came out. The "music industry" is no longer needed, and it won't be long before the "movie industry" suffers the same fate.
I torrent all the time. Linux distros, indie music, my own book.
Get a clue.
Free Martian Whores!
There's not much these guys wouldn't do for 2-4% more profit, even if it's only short-term.
This demand from BREIN comes hot on the heels of a University of Amsterdam research (in Dutch) which shows that the blocking the Pirate Bay URL and IPs on certain ISPs has no noticeable effect on torrent downloading activities. Taking down proxies is probably not going to make much of a dent in that either.
This demand from BREIN comes hot on the heels of a University of Amsterdam research (in Dutch) which shows that the blocking the Pirate Bay URL and IPs on certain ISPs has no noticeable effect on torrent downloading activities. Taking down proxies is probably not going to make much of a dent in that either.
Don't worry, it's all just 1's and 0's anyway...
You just did. Theft deprives someone of their property, copyright infringement does not. Shoplifting a CD is stealing music, taking a file that someone else paid for and shared is not. Rather than "mincing words" you're choosing incorrect and inflammatory terminology. When you have to resort to that, your argument is an automatic failure.
So, we're going to split hairs over what is construed as "theft" while using terms like "pirate"? Pointless argument is pointless. I'm sure that the "someone else paid for it" defense works really well against Microsoft when pirating (sorry, I meant sharing) 150 copies of Microsoft Office around the company after buying just one. Theft is the term is use because that is how the *AA sees it. Regardless of whether people want to try and legally spin it as "copyright infringement", or "breach of licensing contract", it's all a form of theft, especially if the end result is someone gaining something of tangible value for free.
Research says that pirates are the media companies' best customers, spending far more money than non-pirates. Piracy sells media.
Which is exactly why the MAFIAA hates file sharing -- it benefits the indies. Thanks to cheap recording and the internet, musicians no longer need the RIAA labels, and neither do their customers. The RIAA has radio, indie bands do not.
The MPAA must be shaking in its boots after Star Wreck - In The Pirkinning came out. The "music industry" is no longer needed, and it won't be long before the "movie industry" suffers the same fate.
I torrent all the time. Linux distros, indie music, my own book.
Get a clue.
The overall impact is what is really the question here. And as we stand here debating who is "shaking in their boots" while watching the #1 movie in theatres surpass $300 million in sales, seems that those who "torrent all the time" have little impact on the big picture. This would certainly question the *AA's overall motives, especially if the statistics are accurate regarding pirates bringing profits, not losses. That being said, It's gonna take a hell of a lot more than a iMovie and YouTube to keep people from wanting to pay for the next cyber-apocolypse-zombie-vampire movie....split into 7 highly-profitable parts.
I guess you are a minority, nobody I know buys stuff after downloading and why should I, dvds are a relic of the past (not in HD), blurays to restrictive. Sure stuff gets bought, but only things I can't get/find any other way.
You are part of an extremely tiny monority. Once again, the plural Of anecdote is not evidence.
So, we're going to split hairs over what is construed as "theft" while using terms like "pirate"?
It's hardly splitting hairs. Practical demonstration:
I STEAL your house and everything in it: You end up shivering in the rain.
I COPY your house and everything in it: You don't notice.
Do those sound practically the same to you?
You are wrong, the exception is computer programs. You need a valid license to duplicate computer programs:
"Artikel 45n
De artikelen 16b en 16c zijn niet van toepassing op werken
als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 12."
This article negates 16b and 16c which grant a right to duplicate for cases like (but not limited to) study and personal use:
"Artikel 16b
1.
Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk van letterkunde,
wetenschap of kunst wordt niet beschouwd de verveelvoudiging
welke beperkt blijft tot enkele exemplaren en welke uitsluitend
dient tot eigen oefening, studie of gebruik van de natuurlijke
persoon die zonder direct of indirect commercieel oogmerk de
verveelvoudiging vervaardigt of tot het verveelvoudigen
uitsluitend ten behoeve van zichzelf opdracht geeft."
Since computer programs are the works defined in "artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 12":
"12.
computerprogramma's en het voorbereidend materiaal;"
You seem fairly short sighted, even if this worst case scenario happens, the coming generation will not have this once accessible pirate systems, which would translate into more revenues because you've limited the sources where they can get said content.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Knowing a good amount of individuals who pirate content, I don't know where you're getting this from. I guess pirates where you're from are 'better' in that sense, but this certainly does not apply to all pirates.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
So, we're going to split hairs over what is construed as "theft" while using terms like "pirate"?
It's hardly splitting hairs. Practical demonstration:
I STEAL your house and everything in it: You end up shivering in the rain.
I COPY your house and everything in it: You don't notice.
Do those sound practically the same to you?
Yes, that sounds as practical as it sounds viable in the real world. I grow tired of seeing this example really.
And no, the homeowner would likely not notice, at least initially. However, the homebuilder, and every company that supports them, would notice, especially if someone decided to "COPY" said house a few million times over and then sell them at 1/4th the "legitimate" price, or even give them away for free. And then the homeowner will eventually notice when he sees he paid 4x more than his neighbor with a "COPY" of his house.
This is more pointing out the differences between direct vs. indirect impact of theft, but the underlying offense is the same when discussing items of tangible value.
Seems someone (a lot of someones) have slaughtered your sacred cow.
If you bought your house during the bubble and I buy the house next door now, I might well pay only 1/4th as much, does that mean you'll decide I somehow stole from you?
What exactly did you lose because of my actions?
Copyright violation may or may not be wrong, but it is certainly not theft. It is a distinct thing. Otherwise we could just call both or them marklar.
So, marklar marklar marklar, marklar marklar marklar! Marklar?
Seems someone (a lot of someones) have slaughtered your sacred cow.
If you bought your house during the bubble and I buy the house next door now, I might well pay only 1/4th as much, does that mean you'll decide I somehow stole from you?
What exactly did you lose because of my actions?
Apples to oranges. You're now trying to compare a completely legitimate financial transaction that is known to ALL parties involved as to perceived value against someone stealing (or copying) your property to obtain for free or resell for ill-gained profit.
And to answer your suspicions, no there was no slaughter involved, as I purchased prior to the bubble. Doesn't mean I'm NOT going to call those responsible for the financial meltdown anything other than thieves, regardless of what the court docket might (eventually) state.
Copyright violation may or may not be wrong, but it is certainly not theft. It is a distinct thing. Otherwise we could just call both or them marklar.
So, marklar marklar marklar, marklar marklar marklar! Marklar?
Fine. Ask the person standing in the unemployment line who just got laid off due to excessive "marklar" against the company he used to work for if he sees it as somehow not theft, as his very livelihood was stolen from him.
Arguing about the semantics of legal terms does nothing when the end result is the same, and the verbiage on those Interpol warnings hasn't changed much since people started stealing shit by pressing the "innocent" COPY button with VHS movies back in the day. What makes this particular discussion here difficult is watching *AA's rake in millions in profits while listening to them cry "victim" to piracy against statistics that show otherwise.
And "Copyright violation" vs. "Copyright theft"...talk about mincing words. C'mon now, what do you think infringement means, especially when dictated by copyright law that you are entitled to collect for losses/damages as a result of said "marklar"...
Downloading anything is perfectly legal in the Netherlands.
This is not entirely correct (even though in general, only uploaders are prosecuted). All the below has the general IANAL disclaimer, feel free to correct me:
Fair use laws in The Netherlands allow you to own copies for personal use of content you own or have a valid license for. Further, it allows you to have a 3rd party make these copies for you (I believe this was an explicit addendum to the law with the intent to protect professional studios and copyshops). As such, it is conceivably legal to download content to which you own a license. I.e. if you own the CD or DVD you can download a copied version of that content legally, because it is similar to conscripting a 3rd party to make the copy for you.
You are also allowed to record programs broadcasted on TV, provided you have a valid license to receive the broadcast of course. So using this it could perhaps be argued that once something has been broadcasted on a channel you can legally receive, you would be allowed to download it, because you could have copied it from the broadcast and then have someone else make copies of that. I have no idea if such a defense was ever used in court, I highly doubt it, because once again, downloaders are generally not prosecuted.
In P2P cases where everyone is essentially an uploader, 'regular' downloaders again are usually not prosecuted. In this case the tactics of BREIN (the dutch MAFIAA) is to go after the torrent portal sites, which has so far only succeeded for a few sites at a few ISPs. I'm not sure how long they will continue this tactic, but unless they manage to find a way to very quickly add new sites and new ISPs to the injunctions (which is doubtfull) this has not much chance of succeeding. Dozens of new torrent portals were created in the time it took them to block just one.
I am quite certain however that even in The Netherlands it is NOT legal to download the latest Hollywood blockbuster from an American DVD rip before it is even released on DVD on this side of the pond, even though you won't go to jail for it.
I'm confused. When you call it "theft," what exactly are you trying to accomplish? Like it or not, you've basically just stopped any meaningful discussion. Certain people will react to that, and you'll get caught in a battle of semantics (like you are now). Worse still, you did it on purpose, but then pretend that you don't want to argue over semantics. Now, why would you do that?
Arguing about the semantics of legal terms does nothing when the end result is the same
Many things could be considered pointless. But still, people do them. Like making comments on Slashdot, for instance.
I'm confused. When you call it "theft," what exactly are you trying to accomplish?
Ah, when you call it "violation", what exactly are you trying to accomplish? I'm merely pointing out the actual crime being committed in the background, while everyone else wants to dance around and continue to use generic terms like "violation". A lawyer does not walk into a courtroom and state that the defendant is innocent of "crime" and continue to refer to the criminal activities as such. Eventually, the judge is going to want to know exactly what the hell you mean by "crime".
But enough is enough. I'm certainly not going to continue to find common sense within the legal system.
Fine. Ask the person standing in the unemployment line who just got laid off due to excessive "marklar" against the company he used to work for if he sees it as somehow not theft, as his very livelihood was stolen from him.
THEY TOOK OUR JERBS!
Ask the guy laid off so the board could save a few bucks and he'll say they stole his livlihood, ready to jail them for their theft?
We can just call it all theft. Jay walking = theft of right of way. Murder = theft of life, littering = theft of cleanliness, disturbing the peace = theft of quiet, law enforcement = theft of theft.
Copyright infringement is what most people do. They make a copy for themselves without authorization. Copyright theft is what the *AA and company do, wrongfully claiming to own copyright on someone else's works (especially on youtube).
"I am quite certain however that even in The Netherlands it is NOT legal to download the latest Hollywood blockbuster from an American DVD rip before it is even released on DVD on this side of the pond, even though you won't go to jail for it."
You are wrong, this is just one of the wrongs in your post:
-if it is legally obtainable _you_ can make a copy. The reason unreleased stuff isn't covered by copyright[*] is the fact that a work has to first be released by the rightful owner to be covered by copyright.
-_YOU_ can make a copy, a third party making a copy is someone making a copy available (distributing), which is against copyright.
-if you own a cd/dvd you are not allowed to break encryption (but only if it is an effective scheme), part of EUCD.
-there are no restrictions to the source being copied, there is no distinction for an illegal source (p2p) of legal source (tv broadcasts).
Please actually read the damned thing before making such comments.
*:
%s/copyright/auteursrecht/g
copyright is the wrong name for the law, it is not about the right to copy but summation of rights of the owner of its works. It also describes situations that aren't infringements on the owners rights (such as making copies for striclt personal use or education).
No it won't, because they won't get more money magically appearing. People don't pirate movies and then put their savings into the bank; they spend their money on movies they are sure they will like, and they steal the ones they're on the fence about. If you remove the piracy option, they will still go to the blockbusters and simply do without the rest. This doesn't translate to more revenues because you lose a lot of word-of-mouth, so those people who actually buy a lot of movies won't hear from their pirating friends that the latest film was great. Remember when the Academy Awards featured mostly movies nobody had seen? We'll just be back to that.
I didn't mention money would magically appear.
Your generalization does not apply to all pirates, nor have you even given reasonable sources to confirm that this is even a majority.
Being someone who has watched DRM work first hand with titles from Egosoft, where piracy required you to disconnect your CDROM in order to work around the DRM (because there was no crack for it at the time) actually caused many in this community that I am familiar with to buy the game instead of deal with the difficulty of pirating. That works against your given information.
Egosoft tells me otherwise, when they remove their DRM on their products, they don't seem to see a significant increase in sales, they generally see it on special offers. This could be a case that many people would believe their products to be crap, but then they wouldn't have a zealotry problem with their X series of games then, no?
We don't have an "Academy Awards" here.
Anyway, back to the subject, since you missed my point entirely. The new generations won't have any hate towards these industries that terminated piracy because they wouldn't really have experienced their pirating ability taken away from them. In doing so, they'll be less inclined to not buy something on principle or cause problems as you suggest.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Your choices are:
Tax and Spend: Deomcrats....
Borrow and Spend: Republians...
Neither is "big business" its all "big kickback", e.g. they don't care where the "election money" comes from as long as they get it.
Both are in a race for the "religious vote" as it is the most volatile and humans are "loss adverse" so they worry more about the religious vote they wont get than the "don't give a fuck about that stuff" vote that they could buy quite easily with a reasonable platform.
Most voters vote for Borrow and Spend because either (a) I cannot vote for Democrats because it would be good for the darkies, or (b) I cannot be bothered to pay for things now when they are reasonably priced, I'd rather hope I am dead before I have to pay this bill ten times over. (e.g. I have three moneies now and I don't want to live in a world where I only have two).
Plus we let the parties decide who gets to vote for each position instead of letting geography decide, so there is no way for a third option to survive long enough to become an option.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Our choices in the US are:
In the pocket of the MPAA and RIAA.
-or-
In the pocket of any successful monetary concern (churches are monitary concerns here as are the entertainment industries).
So one is pro MAFIAA and the other is pro MAFIAA with a side of "what are you doing wiht that there reproductive organ".
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
So, we're going to split hairs over what is construed as "theft" while using terms like "pirate"?
The pirates seem to have no problem with that label. But there is a distinction with a large difference between copyright infringement and theft. To use "theft" when nothing has been stolen is disingenuous -- in short, a LIE. If you have to resort to lies and inflammatory statements to make your case, you don't have a case to make, period.
Theft is the term is use because that is how the *AA sees it.
So you're going to follow the liars' lead?
I'm sure that the "someone else paid for it" defense works really well against Microsoft when pirating (sorry, I meant sharing) 150 copies of Microsoft Office around the company after buying just one.
I don't think I would defend a money-making outfit for that, but I would certainly defend the home user buying one copy of Windows and installing it on all five computers he built. After all, my CDs aren't all tied to a single CD player. Either way, it's just ones and zeros.
There is at least one instance of "piracy" costing MS money. They lost Ernie Ball as a customer because of accusations of piracy. "I don't care if we have to buy a thousand abacuses, I refuse to do business with someone who treats me badly."
It's gonna take a hell of a lot more than a iMovie and YouTube to keep people from wanting to pay for the next cyber-apocolypse-zombie-vampire movie....split into 7 highly-profitable parts.
Indeed. People will always pay for stuff thay want and can afford. But the world is changing. RIAA record labels are obsolete, and it probably won't be long (the technology isn't quite there yet) before the MPAA suffers the same fate.
Free Martian Whores!
Ah, when you call it "violation", what exactly are you trying to accomplish?
Clear, unambiguous communication. You might want to see a dictionary if you're not clear what "violation" means. When you steal, you are violating the laws against theft. When you infringe copyright, you are violating laws against copyright.
Pirate A buys a DVD, makes a copy, and gives the copy to pirate B. Pirate B didn't steal anything, it was given to him by pirate A, who also didn't steal anything -- he paid for his copy.
It isn't theft, to call it "theft" is simply a lie.
Free Martian Whores!
-1 offtopic, troll, spam
Is that whoever is most stubborn always wins. It's not even about convincing the others, it's about boring them.
My University had a ten month long student strike in 1999-2000. While at the beginning it *did* have majority support among the students and workers, it didn't take too long for the support to fade away. An over-ideologized group took the power, by just staying in the (six-to-eight hour long) assemblies the longest. In the end, there were two main groups fighting for control of the "movement": The "Ultras" and the "Mega-ultras". Their favorite insult for the rest of us was to call us "moderates".
So, yes, I lost faith in an assembly as a governance system.
I'm sure that the "someone else paid for it" defense works really well against Microsoft when pirating (sorry, I meant sharing) 150 copies of Microsoft Office around the company after buying just one.
I don't think I would defend a money-making outfit for that, but I would certainly defend the home user buying one copy of Windows and installing it on all five computers he built. After all, my CDs aren't all tied to a single CD player. Either way, it's just ones and zeros.
Interesting theory you have on selective punishment. Do you also classify stealing a $5000 racing bicycle "no big deal" because after all, it's just a bike...it's not like a "money-making outfit" walked up and stole it that could afford the damn thing, it was just a poor little individual. After all, it's just a bike, it's not like it's somebody's car or anything.
"just ones and zeros"? Ah, that bullshit might have worked 30 years ago. What the hell tied up in litigation today isn't related to "ones and zeros"...
Do you also classify stealing a $5000 racing bicycle "no big deal" because after all, it's just a bike
No, but I would have no objection to your making a copy of my $5000 racing bike, even if it cost you nothing to make that copy. If you take my bike I no longer have a bike, but why should I object to you copying it?
Free Martian Whores!