Slashdot Mirror
Four Year Sentence For Running Piracy Streaming Site
An anonymous reader writes: A 29-year-old man from Northern Ireland has been sentenced to two years in jail and another two "on license" for running a website from his bedroom that streamed pirated content. (Being on license is similar to a strict parole in the U.S.) Police say the man made over £280,000 from ads on the site . Law enforcement was put on the case by an anti-piracy group in the UK. Between 2008 and 2013, users of the site streamed approximately 12 million movies, which prosecutors say caused £12 million in damages. The judge in the case said time in jail was necessary "to show that behavior of this nature does not go unpunished."
hmmmm unusual, the punishment, estimate of damages/losses actually seem reasonable for a change
Or he'd owe... all the money ever minted and printed and all that ever will be.
Luck of the Irish!
You'll get less of a sentence for manslaughter.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
So, he made 0.023 pounds on ads per movie view right? How do they figure 12,000,000 pounds in damages? Where those people really going to pay 12,000,000 pounds for those movies if he didn't charge for those ads?
Prison is never 'reasonable' for petty shit like this.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Is he a danger to society? If not, he shouldn't be in prison.
12 million movies over 5 years? That's still an average of 6,575+ movies a day. How do you do that with a 2008 broadband internet connection from your bedroom while you're unemployed and have never been employed.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess they weren't HD 1080p videos?
Prison serves multiple goals:
1. to serve as deterrent
2. protect society from possibly dangerous people
3. give some form of revenge for done crimes, and do it in an ordered way (not letting the damaged do the job)
Here we have at least 1. met.
But 2. is met in some ways as well. He is a danger to economy, and economy is correlated with society in many ways. If people like him go unpunished, everybody would just start a piracy website, and movie studios would have actual losses.
You are equating that justice should be proportional to the damage caused, vs intent, and chances for reoccurrence.
Manslaughter or murder has some of the highest damage that we consider. However most people who do this are not mass murderers, and will not make such a habit. And often it isn't because of disrespect of the law but because the person felt threatened on some level.
Justice requires stiff penalty for such action though as to make it clear to the population that you must take great care before you choose to end a life.
But then you have white collar chrime. In many ways the person is far more evil, not doing a spur of the moment thing, but a long drawn out plan, in spite of the law, with the intent of being somehow above it.
This is a very dangerous mindset, as it causes sliding to more crimes. So while the damage is far less it is punishing far worse behavior.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Incredible that the ad sales outperform the movie values, yet the MAFIAA refuse to take part in such consumer-friendly operations.
I never defend piracy. And if a person isn't dangerous, you don't lock him up!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I'll do two years standing on my head for 280K.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Obviously the summary was written to generate sympathy: 2 years prison, 2 years probation is NOT a 4-year sentence, in common parlance.
I don't give a shit about how you feel about piracy (it's not actually piracy, it's copyright infringement) but he did something he knew was illegal, and profited massively from it.
So 2 years in a minimum security jail? Sure, I think that's reasonable.
Agreed.
I have a lot of sympathy for people who pirate stuff because they legitimately feel like they're sharing and contributing.
I have almost no sympathy for people who pirate stuff because they think they can make a lot of money.
I stole this Sig
I accept #3's validity as a matter of logistics; I then needn't discuss whether I approve of it.
In that context, #1 technically ought be written "tries to serve".
Heads on pikes worked when society's perception and communication was simple. But now? That phrase I just said? Is so discrepant, distributed, and convoluted that we put a dollar tag on parts of it.
Even if we skip that third paragraph, it's a contested idea, sometimes the numbers show it doesn't work.
You have to be fucking kidding right? Hollywood, RIAA, MPAA, etc is not run by Republicans you fucking idiot.
Just stop trying to defend piracy.
Or how about we stop pretending that rent-seeking in the name of capitalism is in the best interests of society.
We are becoming a society the produces nothing, yet expects to get money for the nearly nothing that we are doing. At the end of the day, what really is the difference between that and welfare?
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Right. The Democrats and Republicans are run by the RIAA and MPAA plus Disney and some others.
I defend copyright infringement in this thread:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Punitive imprisonment is never effective at preventing future crimes (check out the recidivism rate!) and is a tremendous evil. There is nothing that you can take from someone that is more precious than years of their life, especially years in the prime of their life. If someone is dangerous, you can at least argue that locking them up is keeping others safe (although that's dubious unless you assume that other people in prison are less than human and don't deserve physical safety like the rest of us), but locking up an intellectual property pirate has no benefit to anyone at all. This is an evil act.
Just stop trying to defend punitive imprisonment.
He should have have burned them and sold them on DVD-Rs. Apparently if you do that you get only probation. lol
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/04/politics/labor-department-bootleg-movies/index.html
Damages - are they calculated by multiplying the number of downloads by retail price?
Like - ookay.. Everyone who downloaded a movie and the Site would not have been there would have bought the movie retail?
I wonder if one day it comes around that you get sued by a company for not buying from them causing them lost profit, like a mini-TPP?
Obviously the summary was written to generate sympathy: 2 years prison, 2 years probation is NOT a 4-year sentence, in common parlance.
I don't give a shit about how you feel about piracy (it's not actually piracy, it's copyright infringement) but he did something he knew was illegal, and profited massively from it.
So 2 years in a minimum security jail? Sure, I think that's reasonable.
You are a total dick. You bother to mince words between 2 and 4 years in jail? For a 29 year old guy in Ireland sharing music?
Here is how lawyers think vs reality.
Lawyers: It's a rule we have to obey the rule. Why? We literally get paid a retarded amount of money to bicker over rules that we make up. Lawyers obey money.
Reality: https://www.google.com/#q=metallica+ride+the+lightning+release+date
(July 27, 1984) You could buy it on cassette tape. I bought it several times because it wore out, got loaned and never returned, and got lost. Each of those ways. It would have been illegal to copy it and give somebody a blank tape with a dub. Sure, dual cassette decks were sold that made it very easy to copy cassette tapes. Electronics retailers made money and hired lawyers so hey, pspspspss that's cool. Buy it, just say "don't copy tapes".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhT0g9jULpw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2ydUOZYmbY
You won't understand my point though because you are obviously a tool. Piracy is already a misnomer. It was a made up word initially, it is a lie. Nobody on any fucking ship sails the high seas to capture Metallica tapes. Sure it's reasonable to hope for compensation for your music or Hollywood propaganda. It's also nice to get paid 100's of millions of dollars to build homes and buildings or run farms or make clothing. Crying because unauthorized people listened to you twang on guitar strings and hear you go yayaya without paying you.. send them to prison? If you live next door to an amphitheater should you be taxed? You should move to North Korea. I hope you do pussy.
Sorry you godless faggots just want the money. Maybe if you learned what fiat money actually is you will begin to slap yourself every day.
http://ftmdaily.com/preparing-for-the-collapse-of-the-petrodollar-system/
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fiatmoney.asp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_VqX6J93k
http://www.bis.org/statistics/derstats.htm
The comment below you http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7977165&cid=50483469 got it right.
Here have a first hit: http://www.iciclesoftware.com/LawJokes/IcicleLawJokes.html
Call it BSD License.
I never defend piracy. And if a person isn't dangerous, you don't lock him up!
Well if minimum security prisons in the UK are anything like the ones in Canada, it basically will be a vacation for the guy. He can even go out on day passes -- every day up to 12 hours with no one looking over his shoulder. In some cases, you can even have your car brought to the prison so you can drive it out when you go out on your day pass. You still get all the goodies that exist, like education(HS, University and College courses) as well. And after the probation period at least here, you can apply for a pardon if you've kept your nose clean and have your criminal record sealed.
Om, nomnomnom...
I agree that violent crime should be more severely punished than a comparable non-violent crime, but frauds like Bernie Madoff deserve jail time.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Too bad he wasn't already a millionaire, then he would have been able to settle this out of court with the government, and probably get a bonus as well.
No, just take his money, property, and what he makes in the future. Leave him enough to buy a can of beans every day. He can sleep at the Y.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Do you not agree you need to have the bigger hammer in your quivver,
at least to threaten them with?
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I never defend piracy. And if a person isn't dangerous, you don't lock him up!
Fine, how about 500 lashes, a la Singapore?
Punitive imprisonment is never effective at preventing future crimes (check out the recidivism rate!)
A couple of points;
1. Who is to say recidivism rates would not be higher of the prison sentence was not there.
2. Recidivism rate do not reflect the number of crimes prevented due to potential criminals not wanting to risk jail time.
There is nothing that you can take from someone that is more precious than years of their life, especially years in the prime of their life.
Exactly and maybe fewer crimes are being commuted because people do not want to risk losing those years.
Just stop trying to defend punitive imprisonment.
What is your alternative?
Central bankers and government deficit spending are far greater dangers to the economy than some guy who copies movies for other people, yet where's the prison time for them?
Oh right, two sets of laws. One for the "elite" and one for the peons.
It is hardly petty shit. when you are raking in a couple of hundred thousand pounds from copyright infringement you are basically operating on a commercial level.
You left out #4:
In the United States, prisons are a HUGE industry that includes supporting entities like food service, medical incompetence, internal bribes, gangs, etc.
The incarceration empires love, and lobby for, jail time for tiny bits of drug possession, for instance.
That's why America has such a high prison population.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
. . . and cows. Cows that use apps.
... movie industry should go into the fucking piracy business.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
hmmmm unusual, the punishment, estimate of damages/losses actually seem reasonable for a change
Add revenues: 280,000 pounds = $ 432,000 US.
12 million streams @ $5 ea. = $60 million worth of licensed streams.
---- and when a movie is being streamed, I am going to assume that the downloader is sitting there watching it.
That the excuses the geek trots out for his downloads from Pirate Bay don't make any sense here. What he wants is a free movie night and that is the end of it.
12 million streams is an unlicensed wholesale distribution. If the real or intangible property being distributed on such a scale was anything other than a movie, I'd be interested in knowing if the sentence would be so light.
correlated with society?
so if fifa makes some rule about sharing sports scores through unofficial channels, and someone
violates that rule then they should be locked up for causing damage to fifa, and thus to society
as a whole?
if I undercut sales of new Lexmark print cartridges by refilling old ones I should be locked up?
selling dvds purchased legally in a different region?
selling used textbooks?
these are all cases where some business has demanded that we subsidize their business plans
by adopting them as law and underwriting the enforcement
i've seen the police arrest someone for bringing in beer purchased at the corner store into a bar
because they violated the liquor distribution laws.
its just corruption
While in theory I agree, in practice, what else can we do? Someone commits a crime, they need to be punished. Sure, we can levy fines, but if the person is rich, they just pay them and it doesn't matter to them. If they are poor they can't pay them anyway so what do we do then? If someone steals a car, we can try and get them to pay for the car, but they probably don't have enough to do it. Sure, we can garnish wages for the future, but that is just a sure fire way of keeping the poor committing crimes because even when they do make money legally afterward, they won't get it.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
He's shown a willingness to harm others for profit.
I'm not sure whether or not that is enough for jail time, but right now I'm leaning towards yes. When I think if EU prisons though I don't think of what it is like in the US, though I'm sure some of their members must have similar conditions.
What is jail like in England? What is life like afterwards? If this will wreck his life, like felony convictions in the US can, I do think it's harsh.
(it's not actually piracy, it's copyright infringement)
Yes, it is piracy. And it's also copyright infringement. Because piracy in this case is basically a (somewhat) more colloquial term for the copyright infringement. If you don't believe me, look it up: there are TONS of citations going back to the 1600's.
So, as long as a person isn't "dangerous" (in what definition immediate threat to someone's life or health?) jail time should never be a result?
Awesome! So, the ideal criminal pursuit is to go steal as much as you can in a non-threatening way, spend it all, and get off scot-free! Or worst case: don't spend it all, get caught, and have to give whatever is left back. Oh no, what a deterrent!
If you commit a crime knowing beforehand that it was a crime and was punishable by jail time, you have no one to blame but yourself for your incarceration.
So, in that case, he might as well just keep committing crimes, since the only punishment (if he gets caught) is taking the stolen money away again. This is literally an incentive TO commit crime in this case, as it's the only way he will have money.
What is your alternative?
I believe the word is rehabilitation. Punitive, vengeful punishment is not helpful towards that end. What you will usually get is radicalization, not exactly an irrational reaction to such abuse. And recidivism in the US has more to do with corruption than anything.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Or maybe making a major movie that cost millions of dollars (and employed hundreds or even thousands of people) IS creating something, and the investors would to make back their investment from the people who consume their content for entertainment.
IMO in this case the "entitled" are not the studios wanting payment for watching their movies, it's the people who think that watching those movies is somehow their inherent right and they shouldn't have to pay for it.
That makes no sense. If he can't and keep and spend the money, why go through all the effort? I didn't say we can't put a ankle bracelet on him. And if he gets violent, well, you do what what must be done, don't hesitate.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
No matter how much Slashdot tries to put it's head in the sand and play childish semantic games - it's what everyone else in the world calls piracy and has for over a century.
I think if this is punishable by jail time so should: speeding, failing to stop at a stop sign and almost every vehicle related offense. You can kill someone by doing that, way more dangerous to society.
There are too many alternatives to consider prison. What you're asking for is the convenience and expedience of just locking people up and forgetting about them for a while. Well, if you want to piss them off, and possibly make them actually dangerous, then by all means...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
"IMO in this case the "entitled" are not the studios wanting payment for watching their movies"
How can't it be entitlement? They produce the movies *first*, then they show it publicly and *after* that they seek for money. How about me farting first and then, if you happen to smell it, ask for your money supported by law?
"it's the people who think that watching those movies is somehow their inherent right"
The fact is that it *is* their inherent right: once that something goes public, it's public and you can't put it back in its box again. All copyright laws, either if you support them or not, are restrictions over inherent rights, under the argument that, in the end, that's overall better for the general interest: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing..." in USA parlance.
companies. he's shown a willingness to dilute the distribute channel and potentially caused some missed
sales for a company
thats pretty weak sauce compared with beating someone with a stick or raping them...unless the companies
own the government
Copyright infringement is not really, not morally a crime, just contractual infringement based upon a very questionable law. However, crime was the individuals choice and the likelihood is, if streaming content and promoting the worst likely products was not available, alternate criminal activity would have been undertaken. The question is though, what kind of bandwidth did the individual have to make those numbers real, bandwidth going to his bedroom presumably in a residential area. How accurate was the number of streams and was it hugely inflated. So did they actually measure them all or did they just do statistical non evidenciary bullshit, so you should only get convicted for the crimes you did do and not the crimes you might have done. So I would have to call bullshit 12 million movies streamed.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
I don't buy that 1 or 3 are valid at all. There are other punishments that can be used to serve as a deterrent. And frankly, taking vengeance from someone I find barbaric.
Prison has far too many consequences to be used simply as a deterrent - it literally destroys someone's life (they will likely lose their job and their house, they will probably struggle to ever get a job again, and hence to ever have any kind of life). It should not be used casually. Separating someone from society who is actually dangerous is the only legitimate use for it that I can actually think of.
Sure, we can levy fines, but if the person is rich, they just pay them and it doesn't matter to them.
So determine the size of the fine based on a proportion of their income or their wealth (or some combination of the two).
If they are poor they can't pay them anyway so what do we do then?
Get them to repay the damage they've caused to society in some other way. Community service springs to mind.
"He's shown a willingness to harm others for profit."
Who was harmed, then?
Please note that I'm not asked who *claimed* to be harmed but who was *actually* harmed.
The people who saw the films? I don't think so.
The advertisers that voluntarily for showing their ads? I don't think so.
The companies that produced the films under distribution? Well, they claim to be damaged but, how? Can they show that anybody stopped paying a ticket or a licensed streamer because of that? I don't think so. And then, even if that could be demonstrated, what about the pub I went this evening? Me being at the pub certainly avoided me going to the cinema and paying them a ticket. Maybe we should also fine the pub.
IMO in this case the "entitled" are not the studios wanting payment for watching their movies
Except the greedy bastards want payments for the next 120 years. Copyright s/b 25 years tops. If you can not make back your nut in a generation it doesn't deserve protection. unregistered copyright 3 years. Registered copyright 7 years, renewal at 14 & 21 years at 10% of the gross profit of the 1st 3 years. Unregistered and unrenewed works fall into the public domain.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
I think a better test would be whether a person is likely to commit crimes in the future.
but why not notpirate?
That makes no sense. If he can't and keep and spend the money, why go through all the effort?
Because you are only caught and punished for 10% of the stuff you do. So if your penalty isn't 10x worse than what you did, then there's no disincentive.
Learn to love Alaska
I believe the word is rehabilitation.
You haven't talked about anything that would indicate a reduced rate of recidivism. So what do you propose, other than "not jail"?
Learn to love Alaska
Then what should be the punishment be for non-violent theft?
Learn to love Alaska
So what should the fine be for a poor person stealing $100? How about a person worth $10,000,000 making $1,000,000 a year stealing $100
Learn to love Alaska
So if I look for cars in garages that haven't been driven in a month, and I steal them, you have to prove that there was some actual loss of utility, not just a loss of property?
People paid him about $1,000,000 for movies illegally shown. That would seem to indicate at least $1,000,000 in actual loss. The court indicated it was about $12M in actual provable loss.
But then you know this case better than the judge who heard it. And you know the law better than the lawyers involved.
That you are too dumb to understand doesn't prove it never happened.
Learn to love Alaska
In the Bernie Madoff example? Pissing him off is just fine (why on EARTH would that be a problem??), and I don't think prison is going to make a 70 year old privileged billionaire "dangerous".
On the other hand, you can let him out, and as you say, go after his assets and income. But by this time he already has friends and relative who can support him VERY comfortably - and that's assuming he doesn't have millions stashed in foreign accounts he can use, anyway.
The only way to truly punish (and really, deter) those who are above our ability to punish financially, is to confine them.
Yup, that was they key point. Also the fact that he doesn't *really* have to commit any more crimes, the 90% of the crimes he already committed that weren't noticed means he has tons of friends, colleagues, and relatives with a lot of untraceable money who now owe him (and probably want his silence) and will support him in a luxurious lifestyle for as long as he needs.
Totally agree there. Copyright could be limited. Patents should be limited. I'd be all for 25 (or even 15?) year copyrights and 5 year patents.
Agreed. Prison is a harsh place and built upon a draconian penalty imposition. People do not 'deserve' prison. They 'deserve' rehabilitation to the system of governance in their geolocation.
That said, since netflix arrived, I have:
1. Stopped torrenting 100%
2. Reduced going to cinemas by almost 100% (Twice monthly avg to maybe once a couple maybe three months)
3. Stopped spreading the word about how great/crap something is because of primarily #1 which if was good enough led to me doing #2
Fu copyright bs enforcers.
My life is my life, I owe you jack and shit. And jack left town.
I assume you think the same thing for patents? Once it's "public" anyone should be able to copy it? (there really is no difference) Same thing with software. Once *anyone* other than the creator uses it, it's "public" and should be freely copyable? Great position, but it would destroy most modern entertainment and technological innovation as we know it. Proper *limited* (way more than currently done, clearly!) monopoly on innovation is one of the foundations of modern art and technology.
How about me farting first and then, if you happen to smell it, ask for your money supported by law?
I guess I should have realized I was arguing with a real heavyweight right here. But to humor you, that's a horrible analogy, since if you show the movie in a truly public place (not a theater where you bought a ticket with the express destruction that you not copy it), you can't charge money after the fact. And that is guaranteed by what? Copyright law.
All copyright laws, either if you support them or not, are restrictions over inherent rights
Inherent rights? Are you serious? You could just as easily argue that you have an "inherent right" to your neighbor's stuff as long as you have the power to take it and keep it. Laws create "rights". "Inherent rights" are a pure human legal and philosophical construct, just like copyright law.. The right to property, and even life, is granted by laws, not God or nature, or "the universe", or what have you.
I believe the word is rehabilitation.
Nice word "rehabilitation. Where would this be done? How would you ensure the criminals take it seriously. How do you know rehabilitation does not take place while confined. We are talking about minimum security prison not supermax hell holes. Confinement in minimum security is there to force inmates to spend time thinking about what they did, to reevaluate their lives, and maybe decide to change them.
not exactly an irrational reaction to such abuse.
Wow, confinement in better conditions than many working poor live is abuse?
There is a very old saying "don't do the crime if you can't do the time".
I actually think short sentences coupled with hard physical punishment is more of a deterrent, and probably would reduce recidivism. Ten years of prison after robbing a minute market may leave you unfit or uninclined to do anything with your life except more crime, while a few weeks of torturous labor and punishment (including lashing, etc.) may serve to motivate you more and yet allow you to re-enter society without losing hope for a better future life.
Yeah whatever, typical right wing crap you can't reason with.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
"I assume you think the same thing for patents?"
Of course yes: both patents and copyrights work under the same asumptions.
"Once it's "public" anyone should be able to copy it?"
Non sequitur. I never said anything like that about copyright.
What I said is that once it's public anyone *can* copy and that this is the natural affair of things and that in order for the people *not* to copy, you need to restrict their natural rights by means of force of law.
"Inherent rights? Are you serious? You could just as easily argue that you have an "inherent right" to your neighbor's stuff as long as you have the power to take it and keep it."
You have set yourself the very and most basic notion of proprietorship. Which is exactly the things someone can retain on his own power and will. Everything else builds upon this notion.
And that rises a very interesting point about intellectual and physical properties and it is that they work in exactly opposite ways. How do you know I'm the owner of something (physical)? Because it's already under my reach so, in order to retain it I don't need to do anything and in order to transfer ownership against my will you will need to employ violence beyond my own capacity.
On the other hand, look at intellectual property: for an already published work (work of art, idea, patent...) I get access to it without any violence (that's the very definition of "publishing"): you sing, and I hear, once I hear, I remember, once I remember, I can also sing that song. But then, in order for you to claim ownership of that piece of work I already know so I can't sing it, it is *you*, not me, the one that needs to employ violence against me, not the other way around!
This makes clear that "intellectual property" is not property at all but a government-granted privilege. But, then, on a free society, government-granted anything needs to answer to their social contract value. It is not that I'm against government-granted anythings, but that given they are violence against the natural state of affairs, they need to be under continous scrutiny to see if they still respond to the goal they were granted for and as soon as they don't, be immediately redefined or even outright revoked.
The only way to truly punish (and really, deter) those who are above our ability to punish financially, is to confine them.
No, that's not the only way.
That you are apparently incapable of thinking more broadly about this (as demonstrated consistently by your comments on this article) is something you might want to try to rectify.
Meh...
Possible profit gone is not loss. Theft is loss. Damage is loss. Elimination of a possibility is not loss. Not winning the lottery is not a loss. Not selling an item is not a loss. Removal of something that once was "in hand" and only that is a loss. What the criminal in this case did was still a crime, but equivocating it with loss is not intellectually sound nor practically feasible.
Sure it does. If you're the CEO of a corporation or a politician it goes unpunished all the time.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Typical left wing ideas with no practical way to apply them. Saying the word rehabilitation does not rehabilitate anyone.
The author of cryptolocker makes $1m on a single bitlocker account _per day_. I wonder if he would even be convicted if caught, I mean you could afford a fairly decent barrister and lenient sentencing with that kind of money.
"So if I look for cars in garages that haven't been driven in a month, and I steal them, you have to prove that there was some actual loss of utility, not just a loss of property?"
The day you can take my car from the garage but still I can take my car from the garage whenever I want, you can come back with that argument. If you are honest, you need to think harder; if you are a troll, you already should know this kind of equivalence between physical and intellectual property is a no-go you need to avoid since... ages.
In the meantime, it's still apples to oranges.
"People paid him about $1,000,000 for movies illegally shown. That would seem to indicate at least $1,000,000 in actual loss."
No sir. *Advertisers* payed him 280.000 pounds for showing their adds on his web, which is something he did. Nobody paid to see the movies. So the only indication here is that advertisers are happy to pay 280.000 pounds to a site with as much traffic as the one operated by this guy, nothing more and nothing less.
"The court indicated it was about $12M in actual provable loss."
No sir. That was the claim from the prosecutor, which the judge happened to accept (but then, the accused already pleaded guilty so there's no much wonder about that). These loses to be real or not, are a different matter but my bet is that if we sum up all the claimed loses due to piracy from the likes of the RIAA they not only wouldn't earn a penny but that they even would owe some money to the pirates by the end of the day.
Yeah, there is. They practice them in a couple of the civilized countries in Europe. You're just too accustomed to the lock 'em up bullshit that's been crammed into peoples heads for the last 35 years. Never mind..
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I never defend piracy
This whole thread is discussing punishment as if it's a forgone conclusion that copying is bad. "Piracy" is a loaded term and part of the propaganda publishers use to justify their stance. They've spent decades trying to convince the public to accept the simplification that "property is property" and there's no difference between "intellectual properties" and material properties. However seductive it sounds, it's flat wrong.
You should defend our rights. Sharing of information is a natural right. Sooner or later, creators and peddlers of such products must accept that the business model of selling copies is broken, is against the public interest, and that there are other business models and they do work.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Anything which doesn't harm health or lives is near-petty shit. And it if just concerns virtual possessions, it *is* petty shit.
Man, get a perspective.
Sweet you won't mind if I steal everything you own as after all that is just petty shit and I should not be at any risk of serious punishment as after all I didn't endanger your life or harm your health. Get some fucking perspective moron, if you don't punish for this sort of shit it becomes a free for all.
Copyright infringement is not really, not morally a crime
Disagree. Like many other crimes, it's easy to rationalize when you think of it as a crime against a faceless conglomerate or something. And, let's face it, I have downloaded stuff for free before that I shouldn't, you probably have too, so we like to wave our hands and say it's not really a crime or morally wrong, because we abstract things so the "victim" is someone we have no sympathy for.
But that's not really true, is it? Let's say for example that the copyright infringement was giving away free copies of a very useful $4.99 app that an independent developer worked very hard on. Or maybe it was giving away free copies of a $3.99 Amazon Kindle Single by a first time author or a Comixology independent comic. If you were the party that made these things and then had other people redistributing them for free... you would be pissed, right?
The fact of the matter is that when Person/Company/Whatever X says "I made this thing, I would like you to pay for it in order to use it," then morally our only choice is to say "yes, I agree to your terms in order to get this thing you created" or to say "no thanks, your thing is not worth the price you are asking." Taking and using the thing but not paying the price asked is not a morally valid choice.
Look, we all know some content creators are greedy, unfair, predatory or worse. And if it's technically easy to pirate their works, a lot of us will. But let's not try to fool ourselves that this is a victimless crime, or to think that our moral evaluation of the part on the other end of the (non-)transaction makes any difference. Downloading for free stuff that the rightful owner wants you to pay for is not morally ambiguous. It's wrong. Many of us (including me!) sometimes do it. But let's not kid ourselves about the morality of what we're doing.
"95% of all Slashdot
Prison is not a deterrent: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/conte...
Prison increases recidivism: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/sc...
So what does prison actually do? It doesn't prevent crime, and it doesn't make it less likely someone will commit a crime in the future. You can say you're using it to keep violent criminals away from the public, but the truth in the US is way more creepy.
The reason prison is big in the US is because your government/corporations use it for cheap labour. Prison industry is big business with low overheads. That article also comes with some interesting statistics:
Ninety-seven percent of 125,000 federal inmates have been convicted of non-violent crimes. It is believed that more than half of the 623,000 inmates in municipal or county jails are innocent of the crimes they are accused of. Of these, the majority are awaiting trial. Two-thirds of the one million state prisoners have committed non-violent offences. Sixteen percent of the country’s 2 million prisoners suffer from mental illness.
But of course I'm sure you can tell me why prison works and it does any of the things that you think it does, when only 3% of incarcerated people are the kind of people you actually need to keep locked up and the rest are more likely to commit crimes after they've been in jail.
Big difference in intent. Most traffic violations are the result of carelessness (running a stop sign) to a technicality (rolling through a stop sign at 1mph but failing to make a complete stop) to going with the flow of traffic (good number of speeding infractions), etc.
Ongoing commercial scale copyright infringment with 600,000$ in revenues... if you want to equate that with a moving violation... fine: organized street racing.
I sort of agree, but if you accept that we need a deterrent, what other punishment can we impose? A fine, if too small, is not going to deter the behaviour, and if too large is going to be hanging over his head longer than the prison sentence.
It seem strange that you can not seem to actually describe the process of rehabilitation.
> Just stop trying to defend piracy.
Piracy is what some folks are doing around the Gulf of Aden. This is something completely different.
Just stop using obnoxious memes planted by the so-called "content industry".
Pirated video, software are illegal and anyone have to stop these shit.
Criminal record, on licence/probation, fine that they can afford but hurts. Plenty of punishment there, considering that there is no danger to the public and it's difficult to even show that there was a victim or loss here.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It's not nearly so black and white as that.
People are used to getting movies for free. They come on free-to-air TV after a year or two. They can borrow the DVD from a friend. There are lots of ways to avoid paying for movies, which are either completely legal or at least morally justifiable (really, who would say lending a DVD is a crime?)
The producers of the movie have a right to charge what they like for it, but realistically they have to set the price at what people will pay. If people stream their movie for free, that does not entitle them to any money, legally or morally. Those people might not have been willing to pay anything at all. It's still wrong to do it of course, but it doesn't imply any loss or entitlement to compensation.
Realistically the only way this will ever get resolved is if someone builds really good, low cost services. Like £1 to stream a recent movie in 1080p at a reasonable bit-rate, and well supported on all platforms. Better yet, £1 to download an MKV copy, DRM free and compatible with every device.
Movie studios don't want to do that they. They would rather some people pay £25 for a physical, DRM infected copy while others just pirate it. That's more profitable for them. Piracy boosts profits, because the only way to end it is either a draconian 1984 level of spying on everyone or drastically lowering the price.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You have no imagination as to how many ways crooks can make their gains "disappear" into thin air, yet live the life of Riley
You are copying content. You are not denying anything to anyone, you are not brutalising anyone, you are not taking anything. The distinction is arbitrary based upon the majority if instances nothing but greed and the corruption of government by the greedy. You deserve absolutely no payment, none at all, create what you wish you have zero right to demand anything from anyone because of it. You paint a picture, you keep it, some one else copies yours, that is their labour and material, you still have your picture. The idea is create works of public worth and be rewarded for it and not the feeding of narcissistic greed. Copytheft is the arbitrary privilege of stealing and destroying copies legally made by other people, no material stolen, no slave labour, they made a copy. To be honest, right now, it causes far more harm than good in promoting socially destructive content in order to vainly attempt to feed insatiable greed, morally, correctly, the industries involved in such acts should be destroyed (so beware your claims of morality else they will bite you).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
The only way to truly punish (and really, deter) those who are above our ability to punish financially, is to confine them.
No, that's not the only way.
Right. There is the death sentence too, and just flogging them.
Trouble with most other methods is that crooks and lawbreakers find ways round them. Fining? Crooks are masters of spiriting their gains out of sight and reach. Probation and supervision (like having to attend rehabilitation ) is that it takes massive public expense and manpower, and certain types of crook are able to charm their way out of it anyway. Probation officers are only human and susceptible to bribes, threats and charm. Jail is much simpler and "binary".
If it's about the MAFIAA society - he sure is a clear and present danger. :P
Should be put away if not down before he caused more damages than there's money in the whole world.
I didn't realise that those studios lost thier movies to this guy (didn't they have back-ups?). In that case, the punishment may be reasonable.
Patent and copyright holders still need to recoup their development costs and be rewarded for their labour. Of course, patents and copyrights should exist, that is not the problem. It is patents being granted over concepts and algorithms by the courts until all ideas are private property. It is copyrights being lengthened for corporations until all published works are perpetual private property. Worse, taxpayers' money is used to deny the taxpayers access to old works (for copyright).
Sure. And that mugger who never pulls the trigger? He's not a danger. Leave him out. Or the bankster who defrauds people? He's just greedy, not dangerous. Let him free too. What a fool.
Nah. I say "lock him up." He's scum. He's destroying the web. Because of jerks like him, the movie makers are demanding all kinds of spying privileges. If you can't be honest and respect other humans, to jail I say.
Yes you are. You're putting the weight of development on the shoulders of the suckers who pay. You're stealing from them. You're denying them the chance to pay their fair share of the development costs.
How do you think you're going to save for old age? You're going to buy shares in some venture and seek rent. Rent seeking is a fundamental part of savings and society can't plan for the future without it. Or maybe you just had the old, the infirm and the ones who want to save to start a business, send their kid to college or go on a nice vacation. They're all rent seekers, each and every one.
And what's the benefit for society? What do I get out of this guy being off the street?
There is no social benefit from locking this guy up.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You could also find many citations, for instance, that refer to heavy rain as "raining cats and dogs", but you could also find many people who, if asked whether heavy rain was actually cats and dogs, would consider it not to be.
No, he deserves to get his money taken, grabbed by his ankles and shaken 'til enough falls out of his pockets to reimburse those he cost money.
Personally I'd add selling his organs, but then people start calling me a horrible person again.
What's the gain from locking that guy up? I want him to work so he can pay those back he harmed. Locking him up won't do his investors any good.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Whether or not a crime is committed depends (outside the area of acts of desperation or passion) on a simple formula: Gain vs punishment * chance to be caught. If the gain outweighs the chance to be caught times the punishment meted out if caught, it's recommended to ignore the law.
Simple game mechanics.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And that helps the victim in what way?
Assume someone steals your wallet. Would you want your wallet back and something to compensate you for your trouble or would you want that person locked up. At your expense, of course (because jails don't run for free, ya know...)?
I want him to pay back what he stole, and then some on top of it for good measure. Can't pay? Work it off. We'll find something to do for you.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Really, I thought the piracy bit stemmed from the unlicensed radio broadcasts from ships anchored in international waters off the coast of the U.K. There is a much close link to the original use of the term pirate. They where ships on the high seas for starters engaged in "illegal" activity.
That's nearly 5500 movies per day he was serving. I don't get that sort of bandwidth in MY bedroom!
Personally, I would want him to go to prison. That way there is a good chance he will get ass raped or killed for stealing from me. Eye for an eye and all that. I can replace credit cards and cash. A shiv in the butthole lasts forever.
Instead of locking them up maybe take all assets and require they live in a low rent area.
Limit the amount "friends can give as gifts. holidays are to be up to a certain value.
Gifts only up to a certain value only otherwise it's confiscated - including holidays.
Loans only up to a certain value otherwise the loaner is breaking the law and can be prosecuted etc....
There might be money stashed away but THEY won't be able to enjoy it. Their families would more than likely still be able to benefit from the hidden loot but limiting the crook to living in a low rent area - no overnight visits at friends - would be a major disincentive. The punishment stays in place till sufficient money is repaid. Policing this would be a lot cheaper than locking them up - and, I suspect, more humiliating.
BM3
What the hell does the cost of producing content have to do with anything, unlimited profit so the cost is your problem. Whether a busker on a street corner and a multi million dollar waste of energy and resources, seriously, so the fuck what does that have to do with the legalised extortion of forcing people to pay for copies, none at all. No moral ground at all to stand on, busk on a street corner, play act like children on a video, cavort and autotune on stage waving your genitals at people, no moral value at all. Be narcissistic freaks but keep excesses to a minimum or else loose it all, you have become excessive burden for human society.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Sharing of information is a natural right.
There is a huge difference between:
"Hey, there was this really cool movie... so-and-so was in it and the plot was like..."
and:
"Hey, here's a copy of the movie I saw last night. Enjoy."
The first is legal, the second is not. Why? Because society has collectively decided to reward content creators a right to profit from their creations. If they decide to share, it's on their terms, not yours. Freely or otherwise. Don't quote Linux as an example of freedom, because Linux is not free -- it is chained by the GPL.
Is the sentence/fine in this case too much. I'm not sure... the guy profited from his actions -- he was profit motivated. He wasn't doing this as a social justice cause or because he believed in freedom of expression. He made money off other people's work.
Yeah. Now you sound like an ass.
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
Your rape fantasies really mean more to you than your possessions? Well, to each their own. Personally I'd like to get my money back. I can't pay my bills by having his butthole widened.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I agree strongly with one point in particular: prison is not acceptable for this.
Prison should be: does this person need physical restraint from harming society again? YES/NO.
In this case, forbid him Internet access for 4 years, with 2 years under strict supervision. Fuck. It hurts me just to write that... Ugh...
I am annoyed that he profited from this, so I think the financial punishment should be 2x what he earned (why 2x? because 1x is comensation, 2x is punishment... he deserves to be punished for profiting from other people's work).
But then...
Sorry you godless faggots just want the money. Maybe if you learned what fiat money actually is you will begin to slap yourself every day.
I know, but I use that godless fiat money to buy breakfast, lunch, and dinner. I know I am sinning, but society requires me to. :( So I go out and earn some so I can buy food... otherwise, I starve...
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
Truth.
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
Yeah, I agree it's a colloquial term... that has been pervasive for a long time...
but let's not forget that this is a tort, and not a criminal offence...
I stand by copyright, but not the criminal prosecution of such.
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
The court indicated it was about $12M in actual provable loss
This is NI so possibly not the same as the rest of the UK but in most cases losses have to be quantifiable in UK law to be claimed in damages.
This can lead to some (imo) unfair situations where if a 'labour of love' is destroyed then damages are likely to be merely the raw material costs.
There are exceptions, and the law is beginning to recognise 'emotional distress' as a loss but, in general, when you see quantified losses or damages in UK cases they're probably numbers backed up by receipts, actual costs or realistic lost sales.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
...Why?
I'm asking because I've followed a lot of theological discussions lately, and have noticed that the nastiest perversions - such as the entire concept of Hell as God's torture chamber - are invariably introduced by taking the need for punishment as granted, even in a setting where the culprit can't possibly harm anyone anymore. On the other hand, animal trainers generally seem to agree that punishments are counter-productive from the viewpoint of getting results. That leaves the desire for revenge, which is ultimately just bloodlust with an excuse.
So I can't help but wonder if we, as a society, really need to have a discussion about whether punishment, as opposed to compensating the victim and neutralizing the culprit's ability to cause further harm, for example by placing them under surveillance, really has any place in justice, or should be considered as signs of our present immaturity as a species, which we should strive to overcome.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
schnell:
I don't think there is a victim of copying (assuming it does not involve invasion of privacy or misattribution), as I don't think there is any harm caused by it. Imagine for a second that we discovered life on Mars... and they were copying our movies. Would you consider us on Earth to have been victims suffering harm all this time, but simply unaware of it?
If offered to do something for someone, and they accepted, but I didn't receive anything for my efforts, I may believe I did not get what I deserved, although I probably wouldn't feel resentful if I had made the decision freely, without the expectation of receiving anything. If I had expected to receive something I might well feel not just that I didn't get what I deserved, but that they had treated me unfairly. Even then, though, I can honestly say that I do not think I would consider myself entitled to forcibly take what I believed I deserved and had been expecting. I think there is a significant difference between deserving something and having a right to take it. (Further, in the case of copying, I think it is copyright law that creates the expectation, and copyright law has been created, and repeatedly expanded, due to pressure from people who benefit from it, making the expectation, and therefore claimed unfair treatment, seem kind of self-inflicted.)
What I think I would do, is stop offering to do things for the person who did not return the favour. I certainly can't imagine myself continuing to offer to do things for that person in the future, and subsequently claiming to have been stolen from each time.
Sorry dood. You're the one with no moral ground. If you don't like a product, don't consume it. If you like it, decide whether you want to pay for it. If it's too expensive, move on. That's how life works. It's disgusting to watch thieves like you rationalize robbing artists.
Hmm.. lets see now... how about some community service?
At least this way the state gets something out of the deal, supposedly to compensate us for the terrible wrongs we've suffered here. Right now, you and I are just paying for his jail time, and nothing of value is ever created or returned to us.
The same JEWS who are forcing millions of hate-filled, raping, criminal, selfish third world scumbags into every white country on Earth:
"Muslim migrant brutally rape 7 year old White girl - Media don't care"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9cid-8eW3g
Any comments? I expect it was a one off, and all the rest of the 'migrants' are law abiding brain surgeons.
He's a danger to JEWS, so of course he goes to prison. Can't have people taking some of the Jews' not hard-earned money away from them, can we... They might have to actually do - shock horror - MANUAL LABOUR, and we can't have that...
Implying all of those people would have actually bought the film. These "damage" claims are totally invalid. Sure there are some people that might buy it, but really, I'd say most people are just watching it because it's there. There is no loss in money earned.
If you want to pay for his stay in prison, fine. I prefer caning. Once a week, 10 canings. Next week, same stuff. The federal prison is not quite as horrible as you may expect. He aint sharing a cell with the Mexican mafia.
No, policing that would be a lot lot harder and more expensive than keeping them in prison. Plus you'd end up paying for their rent and living expenses anyway in benefits, as no point getting a job. So that adds more cost on top.
So you want to repeal copyright law?
You do realise that this would in the long run make everyone far, far worse off right? Imagine never having any good new television or films or games. That sound like fun to you? That doesn't sound like fun to me.
it's actually not a lot of money for five years, and his real problem is a criminal record and conviction which will result in travel and additional employment restrictions - if he was good at computer, he could have made that money in those five years, gotten better at stuff and not be in jail.
Currency simply makes barter more convenient, per concept. It is however supposed to represent something physical, and it used to, but it does not right now other than as a petrodollar. That's looking to fail soon too. The convenience of fiat money is not the sin. The fact that it is already so ripped off that it is actually an instrument of debt... is where the sin is. Now this is not little debt. We are over 18 trillion USD in the red with no end in sight. It has been years and years of lies and greed since the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. Each currency problem for which you connect cause to effect will be related to lies, greed, pride, and even jealousy. The exception being accidental errors, which is a very very tiny fraction of the cause of our debt. You simply do not misplace 18 trillion of anything, especially dollars.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
It says on the paper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust .
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-17/petroyuan-proliferation-russia-china-settle-holy-grail-pipeline-sales-renminbi
In the mean time Ricardo Taylor a former employee of the Department Of Labor recently confessed to running a bootleg DVD operation out of the department’s Washington D.C. headquarters. — was sentenced to 24 months of probation with no time in prison.
The pub lost money too because people were at home watching movies instead of being out drinking that night.
But if that's the case maybe he helped the NHS by lowering the amount of booze drunk?
I think you're right about the intent of most traffic violators - they generally don't intend to hurt anybody (and they usually don't), BUT I think most traffic violators do so not out of carelessness. I think they do so on purpose.
I sometimes speed - on purpose. It is generally with the flow of traffic, but I am entirely responsible. I always stop for stop signs (yes, a complete stop) because I see the stop sign and I know what I'm supposed to do - and because I've seen what can happen when one doesn't.
This guy didn't intend to take money out of the hands of studios although he probably did at least in some small way (probably not as much as claimed).
Seems like the amount of ad revenue is kind of irrelevant to HIS prosecution.
Shouldn't there be a law against advertising your product on a piracy site though? Why is funding such a dastardly activity perfectly okay if running a piracy site is not?
How much do you pay for your air? Or do you just not consume it?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Christ, you are modded +5 insightful??? This site sucks.
...Why?
Two mains reasons:
1) To discourage others from doing the same thing
2) To ensure that the victim feels there was a sufficient level of "justice" to avoid vigilantism
Deterrent
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
In this case, forbid him Internet access for 4 years, with 2 years under strict supervision.
That's the first alternative suggestion I've heard that's serious enough to merit consideration.
Piracy could be seen as a loaded term - but it's also one that has been very easy to reclaim, because pirates are just cool. There's a very large community based around sharing data, and they are proud to call themselves pirates. The most successful copyright-infringement site in the history of the internet is called The Pirate Bay. You can't reject the term, it's too late for that, but you can embrace and reform it.
I find it interesting that with the advent of global mass media and just a larger population, the payback time for the media industry has actually gone down. Many movies, even blockbusters, make back their entire production budget in the first two weeks after release. Age of Ultron has taken in four times the production budget so far, and that's before it hits the big money of blu-ray sales. Software has a commercial lifespan of maybe a few years. TV shows exist as fads, heavily-promoted for a time and then forgotten to make room for the next one. And yet the duration of copyright has just gone up and up and up.
Even with the DRM, the pirate community is hurting from Netflix and iTunes. Lost a lot of good pirates to the lure of legal convenience.
Piracy wasn't just about the free stuff - a good part of the lure has always been convenience. No need to go to the store, or manage a shelf of discs, or deal with some obnoxious online service. Search, download, enjoy. It's only in the last few years that the legal option has been able to match that.
:-) Things aren't always as they seem
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
If you can describe the process then why don't you? I don't believe that you actually understand the process of rehabilitation. To you is is just a buzz word.
Calling the low rent area a "prison" and you've changed nothing.
Learn to love Alaska
I'm not into sadism, man.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Your scenario is flawed.
society has collectively decided to reward content creators a right to profit from their creations
I have no problem with a slight rewording of that. Rather than "a right to profit", why not simply "a profit"? Where I disagree is the means. Copyright is only a means, and it's not a good one.
If they decide to share, it's on their terms, not yours
And that's where the argument goes wrong. Why do they get to decide the terms? They really need that kind of control to wring the maximum profit possible from a work? Anything else is somehow not fair to the artists? The goal, you should remember, is to promote the useful arts and sciences, not necessarily be "fair" to artists. We've seen that such control is far from complete and perfect, can be difficult to monetize, and may actually reduce the total value. We, the people, also have interests in this matter. We do not wish to see our tax dollars wasted trying to enforce rules that are anti-social, as well as unenforceable.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
What do you mean by "be rewarded for it"? Suppose I write a story that people want to read. How do I get rewarded? On the copyright model, I charge a certain amount of money per legit copy of the story, and get rewarded financially in proportion to the number of people who buy the story. Without copyright, who rewards me and with what?
Under the copyright model, I can't demand anything from anyone, unless they want a copy of my story. The only way I make significant money is to write a good enough story that lots of people want a copy. The money doesn't get into "greed" territory unless a whole lot of people want a copy, and at that point we know I've provided valuable entertainment to a lot of people.
Lots of people will make creative things that are of public worth without payment, true. Without financial reward, they'd have to do it in their spare time after working, household duties, sleeping, etc., and given a crisis they'd be motivated to stop creating, rather than to continue. Without financial reward, they can't afford to spend much on their creativity. Writing a story may involve nothing more complicated than a low-end computer, but making a movie requires a lot more resources, and so nobody makes a movie with any production value without expecting repayment. Heck, the story is going to be more valuable in public worth if an editor goes over it, and that's not a particularly fun job and so the editors would like to be paid.
And, of course, you finish with labeling everything that we'd lose without copyright to be socially destructive, just like any other fanatic.
The reason we have copyright law in general is that it works, pragmatically, to encourage people to create things other people want. That's the idea as stated in the US Constitution. If you have a better idea (in general; we can all think of things wrong with current copyright laws), please let us know.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Having uncomfortable consequences for illegal activity is sadism? lol
Put the ideology down and back off slowly.
We have copyright law, and it serves the purpose of allowing creators to be paid for what they actually have done. You find this to be politically impure, and you're right, but what do you propose to replace it?
Your idea of physical property is rather primitive, also. Right now, looking around at those things I own that you'd need violence to take from me, I really don't see a whole lot. My car is outside my immediate presence, for example, so if you had a compatible key you could drive off with it without violence, and I'd have to enable the potential of violence to recover it. I would have to rely on my government-granted privilege to control what happens with my car. Is it your position that I don't actually own anything that's farther from my body than arm's reach?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
As a left winger, I'd also like to know what you would consider rehabilitation here. We have a guy who violates a law that serves a practical purpose in order to enrich himself. We want him to have some incentive not to do this, and we want to significantly reduce the likelihood that he does this again.
I'm open to ideas, but it seems to me that a few years in prison should serve both purposes, and I'm not sure what else will.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Okay, let's figure he should be penalized twice what he made illegally. Now what?
He made hundreds of thousands of pounds in a few years, and probably didn't start with hundreds of thousands. That's probably more than he could have earned in that time. Moreover, he probably doesn't have nearly all that money any more, probably having spent quite a bit of it.
If he's got a hundred thousand pounds now, and skills to earn maybe thirty thousand a year, how do we extract 560 thousand pounds from him? Under the reasonable assumption that he didn't start with much, we can take away what he's got, in which case he's back to square one while having lived high on the hog for a few years. What sort of punishment is this? It isn't deterrence, since it rewards the illegal behavior no matter what happens.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Spoken like a true sociopath...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Lets see, rehabilitation, sadism, and sociopath. Three words you have used and do no know the meaning of. This conversation is becoming hilarious. Following society norms is the opposite of being a sociopath. Considering all civilized societies have incarceration it is pretty normal. You make me laugh.
"Patent and copyright holders still need to recoup their development costs and be rewarded for their labour."
No, they don't. They *want* to recoup their costs but they do *not* deserve it. That's market forces to decide or else -again, I could claim you to pay for my farts, after all, I still need to recoup my development costs and be rewarded for my labout, right?
"Of course, patents and copyrights should exist, that is not the problem."
You are begging the question, ain't you? Of course, neither patents nor copyrights have existed for most of human history and that didn't stop the guy that invented the wheel, the one that wrote down the story of that son of Peleus that brought countless ills upon the Achaeans, or that Bounarroti Simoni that used to take statues out of stone blocks, but you still claim that patents and copyrights "should" exist.
"We have copyright law, and it serves the purpose of allowing creators to be paid for what they actually have done. You find this to be politically impure, and you're right, but what do you propose to replace it? "
It is not me the one burdened to answer that question but the ones that pretend to make a life out of it.
But, nevertheless, it's obvious that there *are* ways to pay creators for their worthy creations since that's been the state of affairs for most of history. What if, for example, creators get paid for what they *do*, as it is the case for most workers, instead of paying for the use of that creation?
"Your idea of physical property is rather primitive, also."
Not my idea but my explanation. And of course it is: I already said it was "the very and most basic notion of proprietorship [...] Everything else builds upon this notion."
"My car is outside my immediate presence, for example [...] Is it your position that I don't actually own anything that's farther from my body than arm's reach?"
In fact you don't. Out of your "virtual arm" at least. If somebody takes your car, despite of all government warranties, do you still own it? Can you take it to go to the mall? No you can't. Even law, by calling it "illegal property", makes clear that properly stands with the one that can take benefit of the thing, as the most basic notion of property insures, and once the thief gets in hands of law enforcement agencies, violence (rightful violence, but violence nevertheless) will be needed for him to surrender his property in order to be returned to its legally legit owner, right like the most naive and basic notion of property will require.
You see, civilization obscures the "pure" basic concept under heavy books of law (as it should be, at least mostly: it's only logical that thinking about the basic notions of right and legal since at least the Roman Empire a lot of knowledge should arise and accumulate), but still, the basic notions arise here and there, at least in both corner and excessive cases: the penalty is not the same if somebody takes your wallet at the point of a gun or taking it out from a table on a pub where you forgot it because of the percieved violence degree required in each case (remember: other's property==the things you can't take control of without violence). Falkland Islands are still called Falkland and belong to UK instead of being called Malvinas belonging to Argentina because UK exerts their force upon the property to higher degree than Argentina (remember: my property==the things I can retain on my own power and will).
You make me laugh.
Happy to be of service. The first one is always free
New word for you to decipher:
Peace!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
And what's the benefit for society? What do I get out of this guy being off the street?
There is no social benefit from locking this guy up.
Deterrence. If you don't think having most of your freedoms taken away because you screwed up isn't punishment, go on and commit a crime where they'll toss your backside in jail then come back to us in a few years and let everyone know how it worked out for you.
Om, nomnomnom...
The idea is they're supposed to pay for their own accommodation and living expenses. The stashed loot will no longer be accessible. If sentenced to prison, they serve their time and are then out and able to access the money. Policing would be relatively trivial since there's strict limits on the value of gifts and gift givers are obligated to ensure they are not overly generous. As I said, the family might still benefit but the person charged would get no benefit from the proceeds of the crime. No staying at friend's homes, no driving the friend's expensive car. No holidays with rich friends etc.
BM3
I think it would change a lot. The government doesn't have the cost of incarceration, low rent areas would benefit because the "rich and famous" would ACTUALLY see how life is for the poorer people and there might be some pressure applied to their "friends in high places" to improve things.
BM3
New word for you to decipher:
Peace!
Yet another word you have no idea the meaning. Peace is not letting people do what ever they want no matter the damage. The is surrender.
Copyright law is well established, and quite a few people depend on it for their livings. I'd suggest that the person trying to change a system answer questions about the proposed changes. It's clear that you are ideologically opposed to copyright, but that doesn't mean other people have to justify it to you. You are welcome to propose alternatives, and we can discuss them, but removing a working system without replacement isn't going to happen. Not all parts of the legal system are prompted by ideology; many serve more pragmatic purposes.
Your idea of property still looks nonstandard. If I lend someone my car, everybody will say that it still belongs to me, but I can't use it. If someone steals it, and I talk about recovering my property, nobody will blink an eye at the phrasing. It also obscures the difference between physical property and "intellectual property", in that in both cases I'm calling on the legal system to enforce my rights.
There are ways to pay some people for their worthy creations that don't involve copyright, and they tend to suck. Composers used to make their living providing music lessons, which meant that, if you were not a good teacher, you didn't make a living on music. Writing music was, economically, advertising. There used to be a lot of patronage, which meant that if you wanted to do something unpopular you'd be in trouble. The modern equivalent would be crowdsourcing, but that depends on whether you can convince people to give you money in the faith that you'll deliver something they want.
As far as paying for what people do, I'm planning to write a novel during National Novel-Writing Month. I figure it might be interesting to about a dozen people, but it's conceivable that it will become popular, and entertain thousands. How much should I be paid for doing this? To get it in good shape so it entertains thousands, I really should have someone edit it. Writing is fun. Editing is not really fun, and so editors want to be paid. Who pays the editor, and why?
Consider movies. The Avengers movie provided a great deal of entertainment to a great many people, who demonstrated that by paying to see it. As far as entertainment value goes, it was definitely worth the money spent on making it, which was many millions of dollars. Some other movies are flops, and it's not possible to tell which is which ahead of time. How do we handle that sort of thing?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
"Copyright law is well established, and quite a few people depend on it for their livings."
Yes, I won't challenge that and I admit it would be rather unjust to just, say, repeal all copyright, patent, etc. related laws overnight: there's people that, say, became writers, or composers, on the implicit assumption that if they managed to do it, they could live on royalties the rest of their lives. I do believe in the value of stability of the justice system so any change in the statu quo should be done gradually.
"I'd suggest that the person trying to change a system answer questions about the proposed changes."
This I can't agree with. While, in general, it's sensible to require the one wanting to change things to be the one providing the arguments, anything related to the implicit social contract, specially the parts that means violence to the natural order of things, must be challenged by default and every day: "is this violence still answering to the goals we set for it?" In example: is still putting people in jail accomplishing the goals we set it for? Are taxes still working as expected? Are still patents/copyrights working as the best way we could apply to promote the progress of science and useful arts? And, these kind of laws being based on violence and against the natural order of things, the very moment the answer is "well, there're doubts", they should be abolished, in extreme cases even if nobody can provide a better alternative: for these kind of things, if we can't set the best action path, no action should be preferred*1.
"Your idea of property still looks nonstandard. If I lend someone my car, everybody will say that it still belongs to me"
Yes... on the legal sense. Not in any practical sense: you lent it; can you use it to drive to the mall? No, you can't. In order to make use of it, you need for the good to be *returned* (that is, practical property returned back to you): once the car is again really yours, you can make use of it. As I already said, current state of affairs *build up* from the very basic concept (we understand that lending a property doesn't mean neither perpetual nor complete abandon of rights over it -while you can't go to the mall with the car while the borrower can, the borrower still shouldn't sell the car, while the legal owner still is legally allowed to do it) but it still means what it means: if the borrower decides not to return the car, can you make use of it? You can't, right? And in order to put your hands over the good again you need to apply violence to its current (albeit illegal) owner -by yourself or using government as your proxy, right?
I know what I say looks nonstandard, but think about it for a moment: is it because I'm wrong, or is it because we people are very good at conflate the "that's how it should be" with the "that's how it really is"?
"It also obscures the difference between physical property and "intellectual property""
No, it doesn't obscure it: it makes brilliantly clear that physical and intellectual properties are such different beasts that there's no point in using the same substantive for both (unless you plan on taking advantage of this identification: as Nietzsche stated, language mummifies reality): whereas in physical property is obvious who the real practical owner of something is (the one that needs no violence to take benefit of the thing), once talking about intellectual property it is the alleged owner the one that needs violence over others to exert his right of property. That's against any kind of common sense for a reason.
"in that in both cases I'm calling on the legal system to enforce my rights. "
Not at all: while in the case of physical property you need violence to *restore* the situation to its legally accepted equilibrium (and violence is required to take it from its legally accepted equilibrium to start with), in the case of intellectual property, it is violence the only means *from the legit owner, nothing less* to set it to start with, while no violence i
It's okay, I don't blame you. There are just some things you can't overcome.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Ok, AC, explain in detail another method that doesn't involve confinement or monetary fines. Would love to hear it, as would pretty much the entire civilized world.
Actually, sharing a cell with the Mexican mafia would probably just be a job interview for a white collar criminal.
Yep. And why? Because corporations are people!!
Blockbusters may make their budget back in a few weeks, but that's the exception. However, even the average movies make their budget back after a year or two, once the international, VOD & DVD/BD sales are included. After 5 years, 95% of the movies have made 95% of the profit they ever will.
That said, honestly I'm not as big an opponent of Copyright law. If someone else made a creative work and wants to charge for it, whatever. You can do without watching it. Especially since derivative works, unless almost exact copies, are not affected.
I'm much more an opponent of ridiculous patent terms. 17-20 years is an ETERNITY in technology. And this is not even the fact that people have patented horribly vague UIs or software "architectures" (not even algorithms). Think about it, if someone invented something in 1995 they likely had no clue to its applicability today.
But, nevertheless, it's obvious that there *are* ways to pay creators for their worthy creations since that's been the state of affairs for most of history. What if, for example, creators get paid for what they *do*, as it is the case for most workers, instead of paying for the use of that creation?
Fine. Explain in reasonable detail how a $100M movie can be made and recoup the cost (ideally plus some profit) without preventing it from being freely copied upon first viewing.
If you can come up with an actual viable solution to that, you not only have my complete respect, but your will become the most powerful person in Hollywood.
there are other workable models, even without needing to invent anything new
Ok, provide one. We're waiting...
My objection to copyright law lies in the enforcement mechanisms. Infringement is too easy and too common to hope to enforce without draconian measures or a severe relaxation of legal protections. Like the DMCA: It was found to be far too impractical to actually prove infringement in a court of law in each case, even up to the low standard of civil action, so the DMCA was passed allowing copyright holders to have things pulled from the internet without having to actually go to all the trouble of a fair trial: They just have to allege infringement and down it comes, and it's up to the accused to then undo the damage.
If I were the judge, regardless of the sentence handed out to the convicted, I'd do my best to keep the plaintiffs from spewing their ludicrous damages figures. Even for the scale of this case, 12M is ridiculous. Those legally entitled to income from the movies missed out on 12M due to the defendant's activities? No way. 100K? Still high, but maybe.
You mean sacrificing justice for one individual to make an example out of him/her.
That is absolute bullshit and that behaviour does not belong in civilized society.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
The solution is simple.
The problem is that law dictates that creators are owed money for every single copy created and distributed.
The solution is to cut that bullshit out. Let them get money from copies bought, and don't punish individuals for sharing a copy with their friends.
Let's cut the lost sales myth bullshit argument out to. Repeated studies over the last 10 years continue to reveal two facts.
1. Pirates are the biggest content spenders.
2. Piracy creates word of mouth which creates more sales.
It's not that hard people.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
So true. It is the person who has the problem who must do the work. Have fun with it.
You're pretty free with this "implicit social contract" thing (even if your ideas on physical property are not in accordance with it), but it doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does. As far as I can tell, the "implicit social contract" currently allows for copyrights and patents. I could be wrong, but I'd have to be convinced to stop believing it. You are welcome to challenge any social construct, as far as I'm concerned, but you do need to do it on a basis other than claiming that something is wrong and therefore you don't need to justify that claim.
Creative people don't copyright stuff so they can live on it for the rest of their lives, typically. They copyright stuff so they can get paid for it. They are generally paid after they do the work, rather than before or during or immediately after like most of us. Cutting off copyright would be like stealing my next paycheck: it's payment for work already done that isn't paid for yet.
The problem with paying somebody directly to create something is that it's generally impossible to know how much it's worth. My employer pays me to write programs, because they know more or less what they're getting. When my house was built, the person paying for it had a good idea as to how it would turn out (and therefore knew it was likely to be worth the $2K it cost back in 1892). As for opening a bakery, it's quite possible to estimate how much money a bakery will make, and therefore what the return on investment will likely be.
Creative endeavors are far less predictable. What should J.K. Rowling have been paid for writing "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone"? (That was the original published title.) By using copyright, it's easy to come up with some amount that's objectively determined and vaguely appropriate. I can find you people who think it's crap, so they'd be unwilling to pay much for it. I can find you people who think she should have made gobs and gobs of money. How do you reconcile that?
Let's look at the economics of novels. I can wait until a novel is out before buying it, so I can be fairly sure I'll like it. (I buy some on release, because I'm fairly sure I'll like them.) If I had to pay ahead of time, I'd get less value for my money, since I'd spend more on novels I didn't like, so I'd spend less money. On the other side, many novel writers believe that they've got a small chance at a big payoff, which means that they'll overall accept less money for writing. (People are funny like that.) With a Kickstarter/patron approach, the novelist knows what the maximum he or she can make, and will want more money. Outcome: readers spend less on novels and writers write fewer novels. Overall, I as a reader am less happy. I'd be interested if you've got a scheme that will get me as much satisfaction as I get now.
It appears that you didn't like the Avengers movie, which is fair; I didn't like Tristan und Isolde. (How do you feel about the Ring cycle? I liked that a lot more.) It's also apparent that you think losing the possibility of expensive creative productions isn't that bad, and it's worth it to satisfy your ideology. You'll find a lot of people who want big productions, are willing to pay for good ones, and really wouldn't appreciate having them become exceedingly difficult to make. Your not that bad worst-case scenario is unacceptable to quite a few people.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Well, we have a working system like this in Finland. I can't attest to your stealing $100 example, but a speeding ticket there is €30 for a poor person, or €103,000 if you're a Nokia executive.
"As far as I can tell, the "implicit social contract" currently allows for copyrights and patents."
Yes, of course. But that's only half of the story. The other half is, in US words, copyrights and patents are there "...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
So patents and copyrights are *privileges* granted specifically to Authors and Inventors over "mere mortals", as long as they are the optimal means to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. Once they are the optimal means for that promotion no more, the privileges should be revoked. Patent trolls and media corps -at least, cast powerful doubts on this to be the case.
"Creative people don't copyright stuff so they can live on it for the rest of their lives, typically."
Nor they shouldn't since copyrigths are not there to give a free pass to anybody but to promote the kind of thing they are doing.
"They copyright stuff so they can get paid for it."
That's theory. In practice, more time than not they either get the payment for their works on a single payment (i.e.: selling a painting) or by means of more or less exclusive contract to a bigger company that get the bulk of the benefits in compensation (i.e.: pop musicians, film makers, all kind of inventors on companies' payroll).
"Cutting off copyright would be like stealing my next paycheck: it's payment for work already done that isn't paid for yet."
And here comes again the fart comparation: nobody deserves anything for their work unless it's been written down and signed on a contract before the fact.
"The problem with paying somebody directly to create something is that it's generally impossible to know how much it's worth."
And despite of this, programers get payed by the hour. You can say that's not a "true" artistic endevour, but then, TV script writers get payed by the hour too. And Dumas, Poe and other serialized novel writers got payed by the page. As a general matter everybody else not in the copyright market are payed in front an amount that is composed of both the percieved value of the future output and the reputation of the author.
My point is that looking at pros and cons, it is time to heavily modify the current system because it's working no more "to the Progress of Science and useful Arts" but to take works of art and progress of Science out of the public domain, were they, by default, belong, for the benefit of a very short number of big corporations. Provided you accepted this part, you shouldn't require me the "oh, well, but then it's on you the onus to produce a new viable model" because getting rid of undeserved privileges is a good thing on itself but even then, I already provided you with a lot of other viable models since all that's needed is looking at the present and past: Homer, Bach, Mozart, Michellangelo... did make a living on a world without strong copyrights (and that are the famous names, the stonemakers that carved the gargoyles of Amiens Cathedral also made a living out their craftmanship without copyrights); Kant, Shakespeare, Beethoven, Dumas, Poe... did make a living, even in a world with fair strong copyrights without resorting to them; modern day script writers, painters, sculptors... do make a living, even in a world with very strong copyrights without resorting to them; most workers, blue and white collar along, do make a living without any copyright considerations. The privileges we concede, theoretically to authors and inventors, and to a bunch of corporations in practice, don't make sense anymore.
"Fine. Explain in reasonable detail how a $100M movie can be made and recoup the cost"
You are asking me how well would do an artifact fine-tuned to the current rules if we change the rules. The proper answer would be "I don't give a damn; it's not my business". A more subtle answer could be "the current system that fine-tunes to produce big profits out of film making killed basically all older profitable shows like operas or symphonic concerts without giving a damn about it; why then, should I care about current artifacts if the system changes again?" or even "what makes you think that a film being available for free wouldn't attract any viewer to cinemas? If we give credit to the media producers that's *exactly* what's happening right now! all films get pirated and reachable at the likes of bittorrent the very same day they get premiered and still people go to the cinemas. Film makers *might* need minor adjustements to the way they do business as they do whenever the ecosystem changes for any other reason, like mute to sound, b&w to color, analog to digital... so, what's the problem again"
But I'll show you how it can be done instead, both to show you it can be done and to show you the problem is not the lack of alternatives but your lack of incentive and imagination to find them: Superbowl. It's also a mass entertaiment product, with costs in the same order of magnitude than a Hollywood superproduction and still renders most of its profit upon first view.
I'm not claiming that patent and copyright law are in a good position, I'm claiming that copyright and patent laws are very useful.
You seem to be pushing for a world in which large classes of people are not paid for their endeavors. For many creative people, copyright is what they use to get paid, and it's a system that works fairly well. For many others, copyright is what the companies they sell stuff to use to get paid. Patronage isn't going to work nearly as well, since the value of an artistic creation can be so variable. You've mentioned people we know did some creative works without copyright, but that's just the people we know. Copyrights make it possible for certain creative people to make a living without needing to find a patron or establish themselves in a field first or do something else to make money (Shakespeare made money by putting on plays, not by writing them).
You also seem to be pushing for a world in which most movies just don't get made. Because of their great cost, they need to take in lots and lots of money when released, and you don't provide a mechanism that will do that.
In short, you're making claims about copyright that seem to be based on ideology, and which seem to me would result in a culturally impoverished environment.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
"the current system that fine-tunes to produce big profits out of film making killed basically all older profitable shows like operas or symphonic concerts without giving a damn about it
Bull. What evidence do you have that "the system" of moviemaking and distribution killed opera or the symphony, or that they were any more profitable than they are today? You just made that up, and it's totally incorrect.
I went to the opera a few months ago, it cost almost $200 per person and it was sold out. The theater only held a few thousand people, but that's standard for opera. The history of opera, ballet, etc has always been supported by wealthy people in small venues, and survives to a large extent on rich donors, which is no different today than it was in 18th century Europe.
And the Superbowl is a moronic example. It's a single event per year that is the culmination of hundreds of games over 5 months. And it's an event that last for 4 hours, with about 15 minutes of actual content. And no, the costs are not the same. I could list 100 ways, but the simpler is the players, etc are paid for all of those games, not one event. Your example is like, "hey, we sent someone to the moon, so why can't all daily airplane flights go to the moon?" It's not scalable nor remotely similar.
"I'm claiming that copyright and patent laws are very useful."
While I'm claiming that (maybe) copyright and patent laws *were* useful, but that's the case no more.
"You seem to be pushing for a world in which large classes of people are not paid for their endeavors."
No, I don't. I am not pushing for a world were contracts are not honored, for instance. Any one with a signed contract to be payed for a product or service should certainly be payed as agreed upon.
"For many creative people, copyright is what they use to get paid"
Even if that's true (which I doubt, as I already said, since much of the copyright-related retribution is moved from the creative people to the companies that hire them), so what? In the world of yesterday they used to be payed in a specific way, tomorrow it certainly be a different one. I don't see any problem on that as I -nor, it seems anybody else, seems to see any problem on street ice sellers to move to somewhere else, or IT people that used to do something in a case by case basism doing things by hand, now get payed for automating things out. World changes and no one deserves to be payed simply because he used to be payed in the past.
"Copyrights make it possible for certain creative people to make a living"
Again, so what? The most basic premise here is that the privileges granted to a few by means of patents and copyrights are the proper way to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. Even if a billion of people were added to the disemployment queue it would still be the proper thing to be done. Just to show the naivety of your argument, just change the target: Slavery made it possible for a lot of people to make a living trading "niggers", so let's think it twice before abolishing slavery. See? The "but a lot of people earn a life out of it" is never an argument on itself.
"You've mentioned people we know did some creative works without copyright, but that's just the people we know."
Anticipating your argument I already said "and those are the guys we know" already adding an example of all other people whose names we don't know but that we do know also made a life out of artistic creation without copyrights. So, again, you have a non-argument here.
"Shakespeare made money by putting on plays, not by writing them"
No, sir, no. Shakespeare made money by putting on plays that he wrote because he wrote them. His 12.5% share on The Globe was not because his ability counting tickets at the door nor acting, but because his ability on writing.
"You also seem to be pushing for a world in which most movies just don't get made."
You also seem to play the "True Scotsman" fallacy in a quite peculiar way. Of course current state of affairs is finely tuned to produce exactly the output it produces, which doesn't mean others worlds are not possible and even obviously possible. In this current world were big media companies suck an undeserved amount of money from anybody else is no wonder they can spend tones of money on the products they deliver in order to rise the barrier of entry and *maybe*, just *maybe* under a different state of affairs the industry will offer different outputs. I don't see a classical picture from the 30's or 40's being at a lesser artistical degree than current movies despite their budgets being orders of magnitude shorter and you should remember copyrights are there to promote Arts, not Industries.
"In short, you're making claims about copyright that seem to be based on ideology"
Of course yes! defining which privileges we should secure -or not, to whom, and under which conditions is basically what ideologies are for.
My ideology is that everybody is born equal, that no business should be offered legal privileges but on the most extreme conditions and under the strongest scrutiny, and that you being privileged yesterday by whatever reason, shouldn't be a secure that the privilege will stay there tomorrow just because.
"What evidence do you have that "the system" of moviemaking and distribution killed opera or the symphony, or that they were any more profitable than they are today?"
Press, for one. Aida's premier, for instance, was first page and a social issue back on its day, and it was not an isolated case. You are also wrong assuming that it was a wealthy-only issue as it was a middle class one. I also said current business practices basically killed *all* of them. You seem to be American, you'll probably find the case of vaudevil or living performances at bars nearer to your culture.
"And the Superbowl is a moronic example. It's a single event per year that is the culmination of hundreds of games over 5 months."
So what? It obviously shows that big media entertaiment has more than one face and that Hollywood superproductions are not the be-it-all for that business niche, even if we forget about the very basic premise that copyrights are not there in order to push forward industries but in order to push forward arts and not even all kinds of arts but specifically "useful arts".