Slashdot Mirror
How Seven Movie Studios Forced A Pirated Movie Site Offline (hollywoodreporter.com)
A major pirated movie site went offline last month after seven Hollywood studios won a preliminary court injunction. An anonymous reader quotes the Hollywood Reporter:
The MPAA-member studios sued the operators of PubFilm/PidTV in February, asking the court for a temporary restraining order to shut down what it described as a ring of six interconnected large-scale piracy sites. The suit was initially sealed, but was made public on Friday. Warner Bros, 20th Century Fox, Columbia Pictures, Universal, Disney, Paramount and Viacom are named as plaintiffs in the suit for direct and secondary copyright infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition.
They're seeking statutory damages of $150,000 per infringement plus restitution of the sites' profits. So, depending on how many instances of infringement are discovered, the damages in this case could be astronomical. The studios claim the sites had more than 8 million visitors each month, nearly half of which were linked to IP addresses in the U.S... The sites are believed to be operated in Vietnam.
The court also ordered GoDaddy, VeriSign and Enom to disable all six domain names, to prevent the domains from being transferred, and to do it without communicating or warning the sites' owners first. In response, the defendants purchased a new domain, and then began publicizing it with ads on Google AdSense.
They're seeking statutory damages of $150,000 per infringement plus restitution of the sites' profits. So, depending on how many instances of infringement are discovered, the damages in this case could be astronomical. The studios claim the sites had more than 8 million visitors each month, nearly half of which were linked to IP addresses in the U.S... The sites are believed to be operated in Vietnam.
The court also ordered GoDaddy, VeriSign and Enom to disable all six domain names, to prevent the domains from being transferred, and to do it without communicating or warning the sites' owners first. In response, the defendants purchased a new domain, and then began publicizing it with ads on Google AdSense.
The more star systems slip through their fingers.
Yes, business is business, the constitution be damned... Dark times ahead in the *New World Brutality*. How do we defend ourselves?
TBP is still around. So is Kickass, Demonoid, and Torrentleech.
Dunno what the websites they shut down were for, but it certainly didn't affect me, or anyone I know who regularity pirates stuff.
I guess... maybe they need to announce some sort of victory every so often? I dunno.
I'd never even heard of PubFilm until the court injunction.
Give my regards to Barbara.
Have gnu, will travel.
... So probably more than there exists money in the world then, wouldn't that make an excellent example of copyright :P
All this does is piss off people with the skills to make it even harder next time. Eventually the arms race will end, and the studios will be screwed. The only way to stop it is surgery, to prevent people from seeing/hearing things. Even in the 'meat world' war advances tech further and faster than peace does.
Remember we had 'piracy' ( i hate using that term btw, for one reason nothing is being stolen ..) before the internet. We will have it after too.
While I'm as libretarian as the next guy, and love "stick it to the man movements", in all fairness, these studios are trying to protect what's theirs. They are free to license the movies they make to whom they wish, in whatever manner they wish. You and I are also free to not consume their product, but it is their product. We may not agree to the regional releases, various licensing restrictions or media availability or delay dates, but stupid as we may believe their go-to-market strategy is it still is their right to execute it as they see fit. These sites are stealing the content and profiting from it; and that's just wrong.
don't list which 7 sites they are talking about or anything like that. noooo why should that information be in that article?
constitution be damned
The First Amendment is about the government infringing on freedom of expression. Corporations being assholes isn't in the scope of the constitution.
And it will make the seas safer. How will that help movie studios against copyright infringement though?
#DeleteFacebook
That's okay. Going along with their concept of invented monetary damages, we simply have to invent a new MPAA crypto-currency and say each coin is worth 1 million Hollywood dollars.
#DeleteFacebook
the constitution be damned
What? I suppose you're also in favor of law enforcement taking time to send a friendly postcard to the home address of someone who's in the middle of committing a bank robbery. You know, so they have some advance notice that the crime they are literally in the middle of committing is about to be stopped. After all, the bank robber hasn't been convicted of anything yet, so even though a judge has reviewed what's going on and ordered the action, it's just not nice to stop the crime from continuing. Criminals are people too, and if their world view says it's OK to, say, kidnap someone or steal things, well, it's totally uncool to stop that in progress without first inviting their mom over for coffee to talk it through, first.
Do you REALLY think that the operators of these sites didn't get numerous notices from all of the parties involved, telling them to knock it off with the rampant piracy operations? Do you really think it's unconstitutional for a judge who has reviewed ample evidence to order steps to stop an obvious crime in progress? Let me guess: you consider the problem to be that the judge only did this when some private-sector parties made a stink about it, right? You know, sort of like when you - a private person - call law enforcement about something you see happening, especially when it impacts your home or business.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You're referring to the business entities that were set up to make money pirating other people's products? Yeah, that's bad. That's why a judge agreed with you and shut those guys down.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
About 100,000 more to go! :-D
They are free to license the movies they make to whom they wish, in whatever manner they wish. You and I are also free to not consume their product, but it is their product
Is this Slashdot? I must've stumbled onto the wrong site.
BTW nice post.
In theory I agree with this. However since in many countries (including mine) these studios force us to pay fees on things that could theoretically be used to pirate their stuff (blank media, printers, etc), I have little respect for "what's theirs" because they take "what's mine" by force of law.
These sites are stealing the content and profiting from it
We don't know that yet - this is a preliminary injunction i.e. the court has made no ruling on whether the sites are infringing. If the site owners really weren't given the chance to comment on the effects of the injunction then that is wrong - I think it's more likely that they were notified of the case and didn't send anyone to represent them though, in which case that's not an unexpected outcome.
This is why we need universal income, so we can finally demonstrate the starving-capitalist-artist theory of creative incentive is bogus by abolishing intellectual property laws that make it a crime to do the very thing the internet was designed for.
As they aren't even down.. so its a net loss for the industry due to all the free press.
And what if I disagree to very concept on owning exclusive rights to any sort of media? Besides, they are NOT authors, they're middlemen who have their own interests first.
Some people think that the idea of personal property is an abomination. Using your logic, those people should help themselves to your stuff, all of it, and get away scot free.
These sites are stealing the content and profiting from it; and that's just wrong.
And as usual with copyright this was never proven in any court and no-one got the opportunity to defend themselves.
Laws were bought, people ended up on the wrong side of it.
Dumbass, the constitutional reference being made is the fucking right to due process, e.g. being notified properly of legal actions taken against you. Go the fuck back to school.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
constitution be damned
The First Amendment is about the government infringing on freedom of expression. Corporations being assholes isn't in the scope of the constitution.
This is a court action and the courts are one of the three branches of government and are bound by the constitution. (Not saying anything here breaches it though, haven't thought about it).
Do you REALLY think that the operators of these sites didn't get numerous notices from all of the parties involved
If they did it was probably boilerplate stuff that got sent to a million other people too.
I'm pretty sure none of the studios involved even had to prove that they are the copyright holders to the works in question.
These sites are stealing the content
No. These sites acknowledge that content exists, that it's not available with adequate ease or at a reasonable price, that an unnatural monopoly has been imposed by anti-consumer laws bought by media cartels and have responded by making the content available through other means.
This content doesn't belong to the studios. It belongs to world culture.
I agree with you. The real point is that this is a waste of time and money. Not that I care, they can piss away every dime they have on lawyers but for every cluster like this they destroy, two more will pop up somewhere else. The fact is that as long as it's easier and better to watch pirated content that's what will happen. They can't win this war with lawyers.
Just as "Hacker" now equals "Bad Guy Who Breaks Into Computers" Language Evolves, and not always in the way Geeks, or insufferable pedants, would wish. Deal.
Then you have the freedom to treat media that was created only because people were paid to make it, by other people who expected people who consumed that media to pay them, as if it never existed.
It's the "I don't believe in IP, so I'm going to download {Insert Hollywood blockbuster here}" position that's unsustainable in practice. Without IP, you wouldn't have that blockbuster, nobody's just going to throw quarter of a billion dollars (or even $60M, for less blockbustery movies) unless they think viewers will pay for it. You can very much still oppose IP, but it has to be on the understanding that available media will change, and the vast majority of the stuff being copied without permission will cease to be made.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I'm fine with that, most of that stuff is boring anyway. It can work based on voluntary donations too. In fact current system ("purchases" + "piracy") is de facto equivalent to voluntary donations. Like people publishing torrents recommend "purchasing" stuff you liked. Need only to make this explicit and enshrine this in law.
The studios are not the creators, in most cases, but those creators contract with the studios for distribution, and the studios have a legal obligation to ensure, to the best of their ability, that the distribution is secure. That secure distribution is in the best interest of the creators, who very often are paid a percentage of the distribution fees and box office receipts the studios collect. So if you are genuinely concerned about the creators, respect the deals they have made with their distributors.
>> And what if I disagree to very concept on owning exclusive rights to any sort of media?
Spoken like someone who has never created anything worth stealing. Seriously, you believe you have a right to drive down to the newsstand on the corner and fill up the trunk of your car with the newspapers and magazines the middleman there is selling, without paying him?
This exactly. If I have to pay a fee on blank media, then - ethically - the copyright holders have been paid. Copying their products is expected, so go for it.
There are various problems with copyright holder attitudes. Unrealistic business ideas for the Internet, crazily high values for their property ($150k per incident, WTF?), insanely long copyright length, etc.. The sooner their businesses die, the better.
This exactly. If I have to pay a fee on blank media, then - ethically - the copyright holders have been paid. Copying their products is expected, so go for it.
There are various problems with copyright holder attitudes. Unrealistic business ideas for the Internet, crazily high values for their property ($150k per incident, WTF?), insanely long copyright length, etc.. The sooner their businesses die, the better.
Besides, they are NOT authors, they're middlemen who have their own interests first.
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. They bought the rights, it belongs to them. For example: You're not a car maker, but you bought your car and now it belongs to you.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
If those people want exclusive rights just to create something then I'm fine with them not creating. Paying money for something that costs nothing to replicate goes against whole reason money exist. It's equivalent to operating a money printing machine. It cost nothing just to allow someone to copy something, which is totally distinct from the act of creation and not connected to it in any way as far as economic system is concerned.
While I'm as libretarian as the next guy, and love "stick it to the man movements", in all fairness, these studios are trying to protect what's theirs. They are free to license the movies they make to whom they wish, in whatever manner they wish. You and I are also free to not consume their product, but it is their product. We may not agree to the regional releases, various licensing restrictions or media availability or delay dates, but stupid as we may believe their go-to-market strategy is it still is their right to execute it as they see fit. These sites are stealing the content and profiting from it; and that's just wrong.
The problem with that: it's not "theirs" in any direct inherent sense of the normal concept of ownership. It's "theirs" in the sense of a government-granted monopoly. This monopoly is a legal institution they have corrupted and subverted very far away from its original reasonable function (12 years copyright in the era of the Gutenberg press ... 100+ years in the era of the Internet ... really??). You can pretend like that doesn't have ramifications, like it doesn't invite an opposing reaction, but it won't help you understand that you describe the viewpoint of only one side there.
This is the context in which they operate. The moral argument of "they're stealing from us!" (forget that it's not actual larceny) hinges on the idea that "they're taking what we legitimately own!" But there are two broad parties here, the copyright holders and the people. "What we legitimately own" keeps being redefined again and again, always in the favor of just one party, decade after decade. At some point it gets hard to distinguish who is the thief and who is the victim. At some point, the other party gets tired of being walked all over and retaliates in the most obvious and available way: they stop respecting corrupt laws. The fix is to remove the corruption and restore sane, reasonable respectability to the institution of copyright. Everything else is either a band-aid or an arms race.
The state is too corrupt for me to take any of your silly pontificating seriously. Don't be such a goof! We just need to make it as difficult as possible to take peoples' computers offline or to persecute them for the content they post. It's not a question of whether we should. We have to fight back.
If intellectual property is abolished, there will be no piracy, so in a way you are correct.
Copyright law is first and foremost the thing I have a problem with and then any behavior that is the result of the existence of the law.
Then you have the freedom to treat media that was created only because people were paid to make it, by other people who expected people who consumed that media to pay them, as if it never existed.
I don't see how. Many, probably virtually all, high schools and universities require students to view and analyze non-free, paywalled literary works as a requirement for courses that are in turn required to graduate.
an unnatural monopoly has been imposed by anti-consumer laws bought by media cartels
Why can't the constituents instead choose to outbuy the cartels or choose to elect legislators less vulnerable to such buying?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I maintain that I have a religious belief in the invalidity of intellectual property along the lines of Kopimism. This is a stronger defense than just freedom of speech issues. Don't know about it actually getting tested in court, though.
Assuming that by "consume" you mean view:
You and I are also free to not consume their product
I don't see how. Feature-length motion pictures are advertised to the public using a "trailer", or a short film consisting of excerpts from the motion picture. The trailer is just as copyrighted as the full work. So when I am viewing another motion picture, and its presentation is interrupted by a trailer, I am all but forced to view the first second of the copyrighted trailer.
Despite that I paid nothing for access to this trailer, I pay with being legally deemed to have had "access" to this trailer. Once I have had access, if any of my own works ever end up appearing accidentally similar to the trailer, I could get in trouble for nonliteral copyright infringement. Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music.
> The sites are believed to be operated in Vietnam.
Linebacker III is badly needed. The current generation of vietnamese people no longer remember the fearsome might of America, they need another lesson in air and naval power. Hollywood should then make a movie of the "penal expedition", scripted with a patriotic viewpoint to praise and commemorate the heroism of US service member in the line of fire. America is G-d's new chosen nation, so she should behave like the original chosen nation of the israelites, who mercilessly eradicated all the Lord's enemies with fire and brimestone.
They are free to license the movies they make to whom they wish, in whatever manner they wish. You and I are also free to not consume their product, but it is their product. We may not agree to the regional releases, various licensing restrictions or media availability or delay dates, but stupid as we may believe their go-to-market strategy is it still is their right to execute it as they see fit.
I also have the right to leave my wallet on the bar every time I go the the washroom and expect it to be there when I get back.
In a world filled with rational, responsible people, the media companies' IP claims sound pretty fair and reasonable. In a world filled with normal people who get annoyed, frustrated, indignant, and generally ill-willed and emotional with media companies' and distributors' behaviour, not so much. Yes, copyright infringement is wrong but it's also a very human thing to do; we're predisposed to sharing; and being ass holes means fewer people are going to feel so compelled do the right thing by them. The fact that millions of people are sharing media that tells us that, and that it's a systemic, not an individual culpability issue. File sharing isn't going to go away no matter how much the media companies would like it to. The sensible thing to do is understand the context and work with it rather than sitting back like King Canute, giving out orders, and declaring that the music on an iPod is worth $8 billion: https://www.ted.com/talks/rob_... In short, the media companies are responsible for their own poor marketing and distribution decisions.
There's no reason to believe that buying rights even makes sense. Like it goes against the idea of authorship which is supposed to be central to copyright. If you sell rights you're still author but your "rights" are no longer "protected" because you don't "own" them. It's other guy's "rights" now and they set all rules which original authors may not agree with anymore for whatever reason but their opinion doesn't matter anymore.
There's a disproportionate amount of money in entertainment, given it's relative lack of importance in our day to day lives. Why is that?
If you aren't going to bother to read my comment, why bother to reply?
I happen to agree that systemic copyright infringement should be opposed by the legal system. This has nothing to do with my point, which was that it's not a constitutional issue.
Yes, that makes sense. No, my interpretation wasn't wholly moronic.
Regarding your sig, I'd hardly call your blustering anywhere near Carlin level.
Repeat after me: There is no "their property". Copyright is a a legal right that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights for its use and distribution. There is no "Intellectual property". That's a propaganda term which is intended to muddle concepts, allowing copyright owners to demand things which seem reasonable from the point of view of property, but are ludicrous from a legal point of of view.
Do not ever use the word property unless to describe a thing IRL, like a car, or a book, or a vinyl LP.
If I were starving I could justify stealing a loaf of bread. I can't think of a morally equivalent justification for stealing movies. It's not like I 'need' to watch movies.
Some people intentionally confound the meaning of "deprivation".
Wouldnt a libertarian be against copyright and the like as a distortion to free trade? It's an artificial contruction of government that completely changes the nature of national and international trade after all.
I'm not "as Libertarian as the next guy" (what does that even mean?) though so I'm not buying what I'm selling here.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Christ- even that is terrible favourable to industry propaganda you spout. copy"right" isn't a right. It's an artificial construct being used to redistribute wealth to a select elite via thuggery, bribes, and lobbying by said elite. A right is something that is morally good, which makes copy"right" a propaganda term used by those who support it to equate it at the same level of importance as the likes of actual civil rights. It is anything but and the direct opposite of such things. I'm no socialist mind you- and wish not to take what is not mine to take from others. I do not support taking of what is mine that is not theirs to take as well. When a copy is made nothing is lost without this absurd social construct that is difficult to wrap ones head around if one actually tries to think about what is happening here. One can do more damage under this construct to a single copy"right" holder than there is money in existence. Sadly logic is a extraordinarily rare quality amongst the most logical thinking in our society. Emotions on entitlements, perceived harms (and often non-existing or minimal), etc cause us to put penalties far outside what is actually reasonable and revenge (ie punishment) or 'setting an example' is always irrational. Revenge does not make the victim whole and criminals are almost always not aware of, thinking (often due to drug use, etc), or otherwise believe they they are not going to be caught, so 'making an example out of' has no impact other than on the victim of the court (prosecuted or maybe better phrased as persecuted). Making the world a safer place may really depend on the generosity of others and development thereof of places to contain those to settings in which they can prosper (ie not jail/prison/etc, but facilities/towns, of which may secure each person from each other better, short of voluntary violence between those who partake).
If you believe in the idea that there should be no crime without a victim and oppose the use of violence, fraud, theft, and coercion to achieve social or political objectives (outside of self-defence) then check out:
http://www.freestateproject.org/ - Migration of liberty-minded persons to New Hampshire for the creation of a free state
http://www.shiresociety.com/ - Same as above, but free society
http://www.freekeene.com/ - Info on whats happening in New Hampshire by activists who've moved already
I happen to agree that systemic copyright infringement should be opposed by the legal system. This has nothing to do with my point, which was that it's not a constitutional issue.
The legal system is part of the judicial branch of the government.
The constitution lays out our rights that the government can not deny the people.
The 4th plainly and explicitly states you have the right to face your accusers, and you have the right to know the charges being made against you. It's in fairly plain English too.
It also states you have a right to a trial, so you can defend yourself against the charges being made by your accuser.
These are the things the court failed to do, the court that is a branch of the government, a government bound by the constitution.
How on earth do you figure that isn't a constitutional issue?
So, you're opposed to judges looking at evidence and doing things like issuing warrants, injunctions, etc., as they have for centuries. Because judges are goofs (did you really use that word?) and it's pontificating to be aware of history and of how these things can, do, and should work. Gotcha! Carry on.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Wait. Let me get this straight.
Property rights don't apply to copies of original works?
When did you turn Communist?
Nothing like sitting back and collecting money. It's a great job if you can find it. Print! Print! Print! Count money!
How can they just take money with no consideration provided? If it were a contract it'd be invalid.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Stealing jobs and sending them overseas. Hey you really came up with a great point - them stealing jobs and sending them overseas!! Why its almost the same as.. as.. stealing movies, and sending them elsewhere - Oh yea, overseas!! (I personally don't even watch the new ones for decades now. I think they're all repetitive trash.) The old movies should sue the new movies for re-makes, and not paying them! Where the heck are the counter-suing lawyers for false accusations on the people, so called stealing more than they stole?? Where was Freddy Krueger or Jason when you needed them?
If someone is destroying the house to kill the mouse, you don't offer them a sledgehammer. Stores could eliminate shoplifting, but the better practice is to accept a certain amount as an operating expense.
What the movie studios fear isn't piracy, it's disruption. They want a stranglehold on innovation because market forces don't wait quietly for quarterly outlays. In the late 90s during the home theater boom, the industry could've embraced home content systems, instead they pushed region locking, hardware compliance, and anti-modification legislation.
I have little sympathy for those that fight the tide and end up drowning. Too many industries feel they're entitled to stop the world from changing once they've found a profitable niche.
The only realistic alternative to a copyright based system is a system of patronage, where we only get to see stuff commissioned by wealthy people.
And if you don't like the fact the Bieber copyrights his music, then stop listening to his music for crying out loud.
Content locking is not mandatory. You, or anyone else, can create content and distribute it completely free of charge.
You are probably not going to spend $200m on any content that you want to give away for free, and therein lies the problem.
Yes, studios fear disruption, but the disruption they fear isn't about free content. They are much more worried that the likes of Amazon and Netflix are going to supplant them.
Proof? There are countless other ways to acquire funding that isn't patronage. Also, based on context you seem to incorrectly assume that copyright is realistic.
Copyright is working now. Not perfectly, but it is working nonetheless. The proof is in companies such as Microsoft (and others) making bank every month.
Nowhere does anyone say that copyright needs to work perfectly for it to be considered to be working successfully.
And what other ways (other than patronage) are available for people to fund content? Put some ideas on the table, rather than just hypothesize that there are other means available.
And if you don't like the fact the Bieber copyrights his music, then stop listening to his music for crying out loud.
I don't see how to do that when the grocery store plays Bieber's music over its speaker system.
You, or anyone else, can create content and distribute it completely free of charge.
Not if someone else accuses me of accidentally infringing copyright by copying part of his work into my own.
They moved to ccTLD: .ac is Ascension Island, and .is is Iceland.
I guess it will be harder to bring them down again, as a US court will probably consider it has no jurisdiction there.
because those in power do everything they can to keep themselves in power while pretending to care about the masses.
the seemingly few legislators that do care about the constituents they represent are usually drowned out by the rest.
You've never seen anything truly Carlin if all you've done is watch his HBO appearances and listen to his tapes.
Try reading one of his books. He's VERY short and succinct in them with most points, with a lot of fuck thrown in for good measure.
So not only do you not know shit about the constitution, you know jack shit about one of America's greatest comedians.
I think Sister Mary needs a bigger ruler to deal with you.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Domain name: $10
Cost to get court order to shut it off $millions to taxpayers, nothing to hollywood
Laughing myself silly at Hollywood's antics: A headache and upset tummy from laughing too hard.
I'm not even sure why Hollywood is still around. They are simple gate keepers exacting a toll, and they don't even produce anything I've seen in decades that I'd have paid to see. I don't even bother with trying to see it without paying, it's a simple waste of time and effort for trash.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
There is no "intellectual property", there is a monopoly granted by the state on making copies of certain ideas.
A monopoly that was supposed to be temporary and then to revert to a copyright-free status, but which has been hijacked by the grantees and now extends forever.
The studios are the pirates.
Property rights do not apply. You own the media, not the work, it even says so on the package.
outbuy the cartels
Because the cartels have millions if not billions of times more money than any individual. Maybe Elon Musk could do so, but he's got more important uses for his money.
elect legislators less vulnerable to such buying
For the same reason we don't ride unicorns. Such things don't exist. You're usually given a choice between two or maybe three legislators who are both bought by various anti-consumer organizations. And the occasional time an honest politician comes around, they're quickly removed in one manner or another -- either sweetening the deal until they join the ranks of the bought, or if that doesn't work just drown them out with huge amounts of character assassination ads that they can't afford to fight because you know.. no significant brib^W"campaign contribution" money behind them.
This is of course subject to scaling -- there's less interest in buying laws that only affect a couple thousand people (though local interests still try to bribe local politicians..) So its somewhat easier to find an honest politician in smallish towns and cities. But the bigger the politics, the closer to one the probability of corporate influence.
Because the cartels have millions if not billions of times more money than any individual.
Why can't constituents pool their money to outbuy the cartels?
Libertarians tend to have a bit of trouble when it comes to shared resources of any sort.
Lets say we're neighbors. There's a river a mile away that we both have to walk to in order to get water (because we live in pre-industrial time or whatever.)
You get sick of walking and since you happen to be rich, you hire a bunch of yokels to dig a tributary down to your property (and being a good libertarian, you're careful to ensure you have the right of ways for the necessary strip of land.)
So now I need a bucket of water. I have the option of a) Walking a mile to the river or b) walking a hundred feet to your pond. Lets further assume that your pond is close enough to my property that I can reach over and grab a bucket of water without damaging even a single blade of grass on your side of the line, just to make the example completely pure.
In the libertarian view, I should always be walking that mile because the tributary is not "mine." I didn't build it or pay for it. That much makes sense. Where it kind of falls apart is that the bucket of water is the exact same whether I take it from the head of the tributary (ie: the river) or the base. It does no harm to you at all for me to take it from your pool. And yet you refuse to let me for no reason other than ideology.
From what I've seen this is the general mindset of libertarians -- its not so much about "I worked for it so its mine" as much as it is denying anyone else from enjoying your labors, even if it costs you absolutely nothing to allow it. And in that mindset, copyright makes perfect sense since they're interpreting it not so much as granting you a monopoly as much as they are interpreting it as denying me things I didn't directly earn -- the "if I can't have it, no one can!" attitude.
Now of course a flamebait claim like this will draw all the self-proclaimed libertarians that will either try to say the same thing in nicer words (which doesn't really change the claims..) or say that their personal form of libertarianism makes exceptions for these situations (which is fine.. they're welcome to believe whatever they want. But that also doesn't change my claims which aren't tailored to any one person's specific beliefs beyond my own, which are based on my own observations.)
PS: Can any of you libertarians point out where even my carefully tailored example fails to meet the pure libertarian ideal? Lets assume I'm honest and that the failure isn't something sideangled like preventing me from taking my bucket in the middle of the night when you aren't watching, but an actual failure in the layout of the example.
And if you don't like the fact the Bieber copyrights his music, then stop listening to his music for crying out loud.
I don't see how to do that when the grocery store plays Bieber's music over its speaker system.
Then arrange to have someone pick up your groceries for you. Let's see just how committed you are to this premise.
Because the cartels have millions if not billions of times more money than any individual.
Why can't constituents pool their money to outbuy the cartels?
Because that requires organization, determination, and working toward a goal with a long-term objective. Maybe that was part of the character of Americans in the past but it sadly isn't anymore. Most of them are too fat, soft and stupid to even realize just how much they're getting screwed by a system that lies to them daily. It's not really their fault because the educational system and mass media help make them that way. It is their fault for liking it. That's why the problem is not self-correcting.
Most of them are too self-absorbed and impatient to really take a stand especially if that meant giving up the media and products they love to consume so much. Otherwise you're right, people could do just that. It was the people from whom the corporations got their wealth in the first place and continue to get it today. It's not a problem of practicality. It's a problem of priorities, values, will, whatever you want to call it.
Taking power back isn't easy, it isn't convenient, and it doesn't come pre-packaged for only $19.95.
a farmer buys a tractor he doesn't own it (DMCA stops them from fixing their own tractors and john deere says they only have a licens to use the equipment)
Because the methods used to buy laws in generally illegal so you can't really do it as a collective.
You need to already have the funds and then go to the politicians with a little wink-wink nudge-nudge.
You certainly do have the right to leave your wallet.
I can pick up that wallet and spend all the money in it too! However, I can also expect to get prosecuted for it!
So yes, feel free to copy all the material you wish. Just don't complain when you are prosecuted for breaking the law. Just because other people do it doesn't make it right or legal. That's just a junior school level of argument. He's doing it so I want to! Yeah! That's going to work.
That's the problem with people at the moment. the idea that whatever I want to do I should be able to do without any cost to me. that film you spent years writing, filming and loads of money producing? I want it and because "it's on the internet" I can have it. FOR FREE!!! after all it hasn't cost you anything to make a copy of it! What absolute rubbish. The cost is incurred BEFORE the copies are made. Just because you can make a copy for free doesn't mean that the film doesn't cost anything. How about you go to work tomorrow and tell your boss he no longer needs to pay you for turning up and working? After all, your day working for your boss costs you nothing. It's only your time. There's no value in your time and effort as it's not a physical thing I can take away with me.
I dispair! I really do.
The whole argument about this boils down to I want it but I dont want to pay for it so screw you! Nice!
Then do something original instead of copying parts of someone elses work! Not rocket science!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , notionally it is patronage, but not in the way you mean it since it's not tied to wealthy patrons. Another way is government funding. And you failed to prove the need for copyright. Existence of Microsoft(which basically attempts to build own government around control of software that is not subject to democratic checks and balances going a lot farther than simply compensating developers) was never the objective of it, and there's no reason to believe it wouldn't exist without copyright. Like, Red Hat isn't hurting for cash either, at least enough to sustain development. Copyright is only needed to raise astronomic rent for silly world domination plans.
If I start beating a burglar with a baseball bat, I'm protecting what is mine.
If I break his arms and legs, burn down his house, take his wife as my own, kill his kids, and sell his family into slavery, I'm crossing the line. A movie is not worth $150,000. They should be fined $70-100 per infringement at the absolute maximum as that works out to the triple damages limit.
If I click "Buy now" while it's in my checkout, I'm buying it, not licensing it.
You're right, there may be a due-process question here.
How on earth do you figure that isn't a constitutional issue?
Because, as I made quite clear, I was thinking of the First Amendment. Very often one sees confusion as to the scope of freedom of expression.
Haven't read his books, but I've listened to his later stand-up material. Honestly I figure his over-reliance on snark and bitterness didn't play to his favour there. He certainly had his moments, but a lot of the time it struck me as just empty anger with little real point.
I'll have to dig up his earlier works some time.
in all fairness, these studios are trying to protect what's theirs.
It isn't actually "theirs".
Copyright is a legal contract between artists and the public to grant a limited monopoly over distribution in exchange for releasing their works into the public domain after the copyright duration.
Now you'll notice that it says "artist", not "content owner" and that it also says "limited". Copyright was originally limited to 20 years. However no significant amount of content has entered the public domain since the 1940's. In fact they keep extending copyright in order to prevent any work from being entered into the public domain.
So it seems the "content owners" are not keeping their end of the bargain... so why should we keep ours?
They are trying to restrict competition, so piracy became their competition.
Also I've spoken to several artists about this, their responses have always been the same. They dont care that I pirated their albums, in fact it helps them. What they want me to do is keep coming to their shows because thats where they make their money.
While I'm as libretarian as the next guy, and love "stick it to the man movements",
So basically you're saying your retarded. And in all probability, a content cartel shill.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
accidentally infringing copyright
Then do something original instead
What steps can I take to ensure that I "do something original"?
For Christ's sake SHUT THE FUCK UP you self important wanker! No one cares WHAT you think
Too bad they cannot do anything about the largest pirated media site in the world, Baidu.
The need for copyright is clear from the relevant laws and statutes that it is meant to encourage the production of works of authorship.
Our culture is richer because people have created these works.
Now, I don't agree with these seemingly infinite copyrights. I would prefer a much shorter copyright term - I would go for 40 years. I don't think copyrights need to be much longer than that to encourage production of works of authorship.
However, I would definitely not want a return to wealthy people deciding what constitutes good art and therefore what is worthy of funding. We are on the cusp of truly democratizing the creation of works of art in a way that was just not possible even 2 decades ago.
I trust the market, and I trust copyright (as a concept) even though I also think current copyright periods are excessive.
Damn hippies. No money, no job, all ideals
You didn't read my post. I oppose the corrupt state. You obviously don't. You merely appease to authority.
This is exactly what I want to stop: only rich people deciding what will be seen by masses, and it's clear that copyright accomplishes totally opposite goal, since nowadays you need VC backing just to shield yourself from copyright lawsuits and establishing cross-licensing to reuse any sort of other people's art. And you can be sued even if you don't reuse anything(people will sue anyway if you created something close to other copyrighted work accidentally even if it doesn't exist) or if your reuse is compliant with fair use(youtube etc won't bother double-checking this if they get a takedown notice). And, no. Statutes of law don't make copyright's need clear. Far from it. Besides citing statutes when I'm in fact arguing for their repeal is circular reasoning.
Another way is government funding
And you'd be crazy if you think governments are willing to pony up serious cash, especially with today's political climate. The problems with censorship and topic selection would be far more extreme as well if we allow the government a hand in what does and does not get made.
Because that requires organization, determination, and working toward a goal with a long-term objective. Maybe that was part of the character of Americans in the past but it sadly isn't anymore. Most of them are too fat, soft and stupid to even realize just how much they're getting screwed by a system that lies to them daily. It's not really their fault because the educational system and mass media help make them that way. It is their fault for liking it. That's why the problem is not self-correcting.
Or maybe, most Americans think that copyright really isn't that big a deal, especially compared to EVERYTHING ELSE happening in politics, and that you're so fanatic about it is something that they would consider pretty weird.
You cared enough about it to reply to it, so I think that makes you the wanker.
Because that requires organization, determination, and working toward a goal with a long-term objective. Maybe that was part of the character of Americans in the past but it sadly isn't anymore. Most of them are too fat, soft and stupid to even realize just how much they're getting screwed by a system that lies to them daily. It's not really their fault because the educational system and mass media help make them that way. It is their fault for liking it. That's why the problem is not self-correcting.
Or maybe, most Americans think that copyright really isn't that big a deal, especially compared to EVERYTHING ELSE happening in politics, and that you're so fanatic about it is something that they would consider pretty weird.
Same AC here. You think the attitudes and characteristics I'm talking about apply solely to copyright? Are you seriously so narrow-minded, or does interpreting my words in such a narrow, limited context just help you to feel like you're "right"?
"I won't silently put up with abuse of authority, the corrupting misuse of economic power, or any other unreasonable effort to control my life" is a realization and a lifestyle built around that realization. It's not a one-issue deal. Plus, a people who assert their own power enough to dismantle an abusive copyright system (abusive and corrupt because the laws were purchased) are also powerful enough to free themselves from many other forms of tyranny.
When people realize that the frivolous consumer products they receive aren't worth ceding so much economic and political power, they'll act accordingly, everywhere, concerning every topic. When people get a taste of getting their power back and restoring balance to the system, they'll want more of the same. That's what I mean - you are thinking in such a narrow manner that you either haven't thought this through, or you're being dishonest.
If you suddenly have nothing more to say in this thread, I'll assume you were trying to "feel right" by making someone else "wrong" like a lot of insecure Slashdotters try to do in order to prove how clever they are to strangers who really don't care. If that's not you and you agree with me, or you can tell me where I am mistaken, then I welcome your reply.
The funny thing is... I've never met a self-identified libertarian who would be so selfish as you portray. Most I've met come from a standpoint of, "we have lost a great deal of economic and political freedoms in the last several decades alone, and it's better for everyone that we reverse course, at least partially, and go back to being a less centralized, more free society". Though this is Slashdot. So, no one can tell the difference between individuality and self-centeredness, and apparantly no one can comprehend that "libertarian" does not imply "anarcho-capitalist".
I've never met a real living, breathing, speaking libertarian who thought police protection and fire departments should only service those who can afford their full direct costs. I've never met a libertarian who wanted no government. Every libertarian I've met thought we have too much government and wanted less of it, starting with reversing a lot of the bullshit that came from the "War On Terror" and the "War on Drugs", proceeding to abolishing the entire concept of a victimless-crime. After that, they differ quite a lot, but that's what they had in common. Maybe I'm just lucky but I've never met a libertarian who would deny his neighbor a bucket of water that costs him absolutely nothing. I *have* met plenty who think it's far superior to give your neighbor a drink because that's how you want to relate to your neighbors, rather than having the government take it from you and redistribute it at the credible threat of the point of a gun.
One last thing:
PS: Can any of you libertarians point out where even my carefully tailored example fails to meet the pure libertarian ideal? Lets assume I'm honest and that the failure isn't something sideangled like preventing me from taking my bucket in the middle of the night when you aren't watching, but an actual failure in the layout of the example.
This could easily be construed as "yes, let me control the entire dialog from here on out, and no please don't focus on how much it fails to describe real people, no that's not what I want to discuss at all..." Radio talk show hosts do this all the time - they demand the caller answer their questions and never ask their own, and mute the caller the moment they start making a good counterpoint. Of course that's show business - it may or may not include occasional gems of good information, but only fools think it's real. Rather more calmly and less blatantly, sure, but that's more or less what you are trying to do here.
PS: Can any of you libertarians point out where even my carefully tailored example fails to meet the pure libertarian ideal?
I'm basically anarchist in principle and libertarian is a good political label. Of course, these terms are a reference to the use of force, not laws, rules, or organizational structures in general.
For the sake of argument, *I* built the tributary and *you're* the pondless neighbor.
First, some technical problems,
It does no harm to you at all for me to take it from your pool.
Erosion and upkeep of the tributary and pond. Maybe it disturbs the fish in my pond. Regardless, the tributary will need to handle more water. This may or may not constitute "harm".
Second, the only means of transporting water that is without risk is magic. So we might want to come to arrangements as to how that risk is mitigated.
Third, you concoct an example where the neighbor, "didn't build it or pay for it." However the person who did 100% fund it (your example - Uncle Sam didn't lift a finger), is entitled to the full economic benefit, naturally. So if you benefit $0.01 from not walking uphill, the neighbor can sell a bucket for up to that amount (or whatever you'll pay).
Fourth, you concoct an example where you - the neighbor - wants access without permission on your neighbor's property. Even if I trust you 100%, I have to confirm that it is you on my property or we need some means to work this out. If we don't agree, we're in a state of disagreement - :) - and naturally ought not be on each other's property without permission.
Let's look at some other examples, it does you no harm for me to encroach on your property and watch your daughter sleep, change, shower, et cetera. I don't disturb a blade of grass and prefer midnights when she brushes her hair naked in front of that mirror you bought at my garage sale.
Also, I'm STD free and your wife is already stretched out and had her tubes tied. It does you no harm if I come over ... whenever you're not around ... and slip it to her good. She consents and is in a better mood whenever you return.
Think of all the things I can do that - per MY claim - cause you no harm whatsoever.
It is said that fences make good neighbors and you seem to be an example of why that's true.
And yet you refuse to let me for no reason other than ideology.
You establish unambiguously that it is my water, my property that you paid nothing that you will pay nothing (?) under any circumstance or I refuse to offer the water at a reasonable rate.
There could be mitigating circumstances that justify a civil course of action. More likely than not, one or both of us is just a major asshole in this example.
What makes an "ism" so ism-like is the lack of exceptions.
Now ... where else are you wrong ...
In the libertarian view, I should always be walking that mile because the tributary is not "mine."
Alternative solutions,
- buy a bigger bucket
- take four buckets (have Jill carry two, fuck it)
- use a bike
- use a truck
- build a pipeline
- build a huge watertight trailer
- calculate what it costs you to walk that mile, offer your neighbor 25% (if he doubles it, you're still 2x better off)
- alternative sources (rain barrels)
But why you are factually wrong is because what keeps you from stealing that bucket is not your neighbor's libertarianism but rather you own. I don't impose my opinions on you. Perhaps you fear my shotgun and that keeps you from taking the water but if you respect my property, then that is no longer necessary.
All-in-all, I think this is a shitty example of a shared resource.
A bett
Live shows.
mp3's are advertising for the actual product, not the product themselves.
Why is it their property?
Seriously, not trolling here, just trying to provoke some thought.
The only reason it is their property is because we have legislated a monopoly on thoughts.
That means it is only their property because we have collectively agreed to some rules that say they are allowed to control how those thoughts are shared. We can just as easily create new rules that say otherwise. In fact, many (most, judging by the rates at which IP violations occur) people would probably agree that it is about time to change the rules for this.
Perhaps it is time to introduce a mandatory licensing scheme that permits anyone the right to license these properties at a consistent rate.
Perhaps it is time to start shortening the terms of copyrights.
Copyright is a completely arbitrary set of rules that CAN be changed at any time, and SHOULD be changed to reflect the will of the people that made the rules.
Same AC here. You think the attitudes and characteristics I'm talking about apply solely to copyright? Are you seriously so narrow-minded, or does interpreting my words in such a narrow, limited context just help you to feel like you're "right"?
This article and this discussion is about copyright, if you want to open it up to "abuse of power" generally, be my guest, but that's a problem we've struggled with since the dawn of structured society, and will continue to do so till the death of civilization.
What you see as ghastly and horrible copyright abuse is not something most people think is a problem, or at least, they want to fight other, far more important battles first. If you want to rally people to fight the power, then by all means, but you won't get that much of a response from your average man by starting with whether you can copy a dvd or not.