The future isn't in people charging for things like content, it is for people charging for things like service. For some sectors that offer service value (like Linux) that is good - for other sectors (like music and movies) - that have littlemore than entertainment value, that is bad. And as for those who rely on a content revenue stream now, they are DOA. It's sorta unfair, because everyone crys kneejerk tears for all the "poor" folks in the content industries, but doesn't even give a ratts ass about all the billions who are economically inhibited by the "infrastructure of control" that copyrignt imposition requires.
Slyck: With your outreach to Bram Cohen, it appears that you are trying to
bridge the gap between file-sharing developers and content providers. How
do you think this interview can bridge the gap between file-sharers and
the MPAA?
Garfield: "Stereotypes are often borne out of silence and a lack of
understanding. (understand us, we're greedy) This dialogue, as well
as our work with Bram and others, is aimed at creating greater understanding
through conversation and action. (or coercion)
"The motion picture industry is working aggressively (aka, threatening to
sue people) to take advantage of ( or exploit) wide array of
digital distribution platforms (aka universal controll) and to
provide consumers (aka coerce into using) a wide array of legitimate
(aka, we can strangle you with content controlls) options
for enjoying movies and television shows. Slyck is a great venue for
sharing our plans (aka siezing controll) for the digital future
and gaining feedback."
Legislation
Slyck: Do you feel that the future of your industry will better be served by legislative means only or through negotiated compromise and cooperation to eliminate the sources of first run high quality pirated material?
Garfield: "Even in the movies it is rare that silver bullets truly
work. (aka we make crapy content most of the time) Our strategies for
addressing the promises (of total controll) and pitfalls (loss of
monopoly) of the digital age are and have to be multi-faceted. In some
instances our solution (coercion) will be legislative (bought
off)in others it will be based on negotiated compromise (lawsuits).
It is worth noting that those two principles are not mutually exclusive. It
is often said that the legislative process is like making sausage - - it is a
messy compromise. (no 100% monopoly) Even where we go down the
legislative route there is always a lot of dialogue and compromise."
(and payola)
Thinking that this implied a reluctance on their part to litigate, we
then asked; Does the MPAA feel its legal actions, on behalf of its member
companies, helps or deters transition P2P users to legal alternatives?
Garfield: "We think that it helps to move P2P users away from the
illegitimate (ones that we can't monopolize) systems. When people
understand that the risks and costs of engaging in this conduct are
significant many of those people will stop. (so death threats are
next) Not everyone does change their behavior and right now we are
having the unintended effect of helping to move people from one illegal
service to another. (oops) LimeWire has recently soared in popularity (it has? is this a trap?),
because of the closure of other illegal P2P services. That is not lost on
us. We are working on strategies to address that problem. (perhaps
physical torture and violence?)
"Moreover, as we roll out more and more legitimate alternatives ( that
we can monopolize) we will also have a greater impact (ream people
for more overpriced content). We also know that many people, not Slyck
readers but others, don't often recognize that downloading and posting
movies via some P2P groups is illegal (they don't care) and some
parents don't know what kinds of things their kids are doing on line. (
aka - consider suing the parents too) It is our hope that these suits
will raise community awareness to piracy (boarding ships and murdering
people? NOT! ) and its consequences (our cartel gets broken) and
I think our legal actions help to achieve that goal." (to restore
the cartel)
Statistics
Given that few would support commercial piracy, and given the poor publicity over the use of DRM, how much of their problem is directly caused by commercial piracy?
Garfield: "We are studying that issue, but do not have a real answer.
Identifying the scope of the commercial versus
This is NO time to be messing with new taxes. The US economy has way too much debt, and anything that slows down online commerce is going to slaughter the industry and the US economy....
There is way too much housing debt, way too much credit card debt, way too much municipal debt, way too much state debt, way too much federal debt, way too much trade debt, and there is way too much commercial and financial debt.
All it takes is a stupid little thing like this to slow things down a little and the people will have no choice but to default on some stuff which would almost certinly cascade and force a great depression, or even worse the US would print up money to pay down bad loans causing immediate hyperinflation. This is almost certinly NOT the time to be messing with macro economic tax increases.
... please understand that their vision of the future of computing and the information age is very different from our vision of the future of computing and the information age. When they arrested those people for illegal copying and DMCA mod chip violations - hard prision time for simple copying is the rule of the game.
While I like video games as much as the next guy, I think it is very imporant for people to understand that online freedoms are more important than entertainment. And hard time is for people like mudders and thiefs who steal real property, not for those who make coppies of pretend properties such as "copyrights".
IMHO, people should really question the copyright system. If they take it to it's logical conclusion.... this is where it leads... for everyone.
...I have taken an item that I had no rights to and deprived the publisher of compensation for their hard work....
No you havent, no amount of work on any product obligates a purchase. Anyone could see that if it was a physical item, and I went home and carpentered a replica for myself - that there is nothing wrong with that, but then all of a sudden they want the non physical items to have even more restrictive rules than the physical ones. Sorry, but the nature of the universe disagrees with you.
Lets say you're an artist of some kind such as a photographer, and you depend on the income from the sale of your photographs to feed your family and survive. Say you take a spectacular image that everyone wants to have on their wall. You sell some prints of this image, but one of your customers takes that image, scans it, and places it on the Internet for anyone to freely download. Now what has that done to you? That has just undermined compensation for your work.
That is very knee jerk if not irrelavent, even if they made all made photo money that way, there is no inherent right to restrict what people copy for whatever sweet reason one might offer. Maybe you won't get compensation unless you can restrict peoples speech too, so what?
According to the prevalent beliefs of the society at large, these men did something wrong. You may disagree, but that is your right. Just like if I took your credit card number and used it; you believe I did something wrong, but maybe I don't....
If you took my credit card and used it, then you using money would deprive me of that same money... not so with simple plain content. That is a fact, not an opinion. Bottom line, or fact is that information has one set of natural characteristics and real property another. The opinions of society will not change that or the morality that accompanies that.
no, if I coppied a madonna cd and claimed to have wrote it, or claimed to be madonna when I didn't or wasn't then that would be fraud... but copying is just copying, there is nothing fradulent about it.
It is. It's profiting from illegal acts. The only possibly justifiable reason to ignore a law is for the greater public good (and even then it's rarely justified). Personal gain is about as low as you can get on the scale of justifications. Evil = Ignoring the well-being of other people in order to further your own well-being.
But that's the point, this isn't about maximizing revenue for certain entertainment sectors, it's about freedom from information controlls in the information age. Maybe the entertainment industry will suffer becasue of that... it's a small price to pay.
Yes they were modding, but they were also loading games onto the hard drive that were not purchased. Therein lies the big "no-no"... It's just a game, but if nobody bought them, nobody would be able to play them.
What "no no"... hard time for just copying stuff? It's just entertainment, the loss of some is a small price to pay for freedom of information in the information age.
I was more thinking of the xbox incident that happened a few days ago where some people were arrested and are facing hard time for simply modding and copying stuff onto xboxes. For christ sake, it is just a game.
They copied 77 games onto harddrives; just because they didn't actually go into Target and take 77 cases from the shelves doesn't stop it from being some sort of theft.
But it does, because theft is about what one looses, not by what one gains. The loss of a sale... sure... but that's not a theft in the slightest.
I won't be losing any sleep over some idiots pirating 70 games at a time per console.
Well you should be, because all they did is copy some stuff for their customers - hardly fellony class material. Perhaps calling it "piracy", like they would board ships and attack people makes it seem like they are worse than they really are. I don't know.
Either way, copying is still not stealing. Even if they did it for a profit, it is still not stealing. It is not like other crimes, like where if you stole my car - I wouldn't have it. Or like if you put a gun to my head and forced me to fix your sink, I'd be doing it against my will. Copying stuff, even if for profit, is simply not inherently evil.
I don't know if it's a nice product, but it seems to me that the people behind it are real thugs. IMHO, that alone should be reason enough not to buy it.
This is entertainment, the people who were busted in LA for modding and copying XBOX stuff and are facing hard time, that is real life. IMHO, no amount of copying and moding over a game deserves hard time, there is a serious priority problem here, especially considering that it can be argued that they didn't do anything wrong at all. It's sorta hard to get in the spirit of new product launches with things like this going on.
Copying is not stealing. I repeat copying is not stealing. Hey my car, if you stole it I would be very violated - but if you made a copy, then hell have 2, in fact it's a geo metro, there are 10 million - I am not violated. Hey, it's bullshit morality. And if the entertainment industry can't make it in that kind of world, then tough shit. I like video games as much as the next guy, but not enough to hand over controll of contnet in the information age to the media lords.
Because it's not OK to profit off someone else'e work without their consent.
Prove it.
By that definition, anyone who has a copyright is a hyporcrite - because no one is an island, and all knowledge builds off of the work of others who put in prior knowledge. not to mention that spewing content all over the world, like it or not, is a form of consent.
It's my piece of whatever, to do with as I see fit. Why do you think you automatically have rights to whatever content I produce?
Then keep it to yourself and don't spew it all over the world and expect to control how I use it. In fact you can still do whatever the hell you want - it's your original copy pal. Rights? Perhaps you had some privacy rights before you spewed it all over the planet, anything else sounds like a personal problem buddy.
No, but if they see a barbie in the store that they like and renember with their photographic memory, then go home, then make their own plastic mold that's the exact same. Well, I'm sorry but the store has not been stolen from.... and if you say... well barbies are easier than ever to coppy... then that is all the more reason why such behavior should be less forbidden, not more forbidden. Shouldn't it.
Still the difference between the two is that in one case, they are losing sales to a competitor who has a superior product and in the other they are losing sales because someone wants to use their goods or services without paying for it.
One of these is a core principle of our capitalist society, and the other one isn't. Can you pick which one?
Yes actually I can, because one model centers arround using government to choke off the natural supply and demand of information for the sake of incentive while the other relies on natural supply and demand of services behind the information.
Well, I am so glad you mentioned that. If you write a piece of whatever, why does society owe it to you microregulate how content is used all over the planent for the sake of you getting royalities. And owe it to you to do it in a way that chokes off freedom and the free flow of information in the information age? Sorry. If you're smart enough to write something usefull, then you're smart enough to figure out some other way of getting money without controlling how everyone else on the planet can copy information at their disposal.
..other than helping to obliterate a major motivation for bothering to produce such content in the first place, of course.
This content you are talking about is entertainment - copyrights and the need to restrict the free flow of information in the information age to impose them is about freedom. I like video games as much as the next guy, but when push comes to shove - freedom wins out every time.
Why should I not be allowed to purchase a book which the law says I may not copy?
I don't see any reason why you shouldn't if you want to, but in software (at least) I would recommend against it because it truely does limit your options both short term and long term - as well as empowers those who want to take away our freedom. If you must have that book, why not just copy it?
Slashdot Mirror
The future isn't in people charging for things like content, it is for people charging for things like service. For some sectors that offer service value (like Linux) that is good - for other sectors (like music and movies) - that have littlemore than entertainment value, that is bad. And as for those who rely on a content revenue stream now, they are DOA. It's sorta unfair, because everyone crys kneejerk tears for all the "poor" folks in the content industries, but doesn't even give a ratts ass about all the billions who are economically inhibited by the "infrastructure of control" that copyrignt imposition requires.
essay: Straight Talk About Copyrights
BitTorrent
Slyck: With your outreach to Bram Cohen, it appears that you are trying to bridge the gap between file-sharing developers and content providers. How do you think this interview can bridge the gap between file-sharers and the MPAA?
Garfield: "Stereotypes are often borne out of silence and a lack of understanding. (understand us, we're greedy) This dialogue, as well as our work with Bram and others, is aimed at creating greater understanding through conversation and action. (or coercion)
"The motion picture industry is working aggressively (aka, threatening to sue people) to take advantage of ( or exploit) wide array of digital distribution platforms (aka universal controll) and to provide consumers (aka coerce into using) a wide array of legitimate (aka, we can strangle you with content controlls) options for enjoying movies and television shows. Slyck is a great venue for sharing our plans (aka siezing controll) for the digital future and gaining feedback."
Legislation
Slyck: Do you feel that the future of your industry will better be served by legislative means only or through negotiated compromise and cooperation to eliminate the sources of first run high quality pirated material?
Garfield: "Even in the movies it is rare that silver bullets truly work. (aka we make crapy content most of the time) Our strategies for addressing the promises (of total controll) and pitfalls (loss of monopoly) of the digital age are and have to be multi-faceted. In some instances our solution (coercion) will be legislative (bought off)in others it will be based on negotiated compromise (lawsuits). It is worth noting that those two principles are not mutually exclusive. It is often said that the legislative process is like making sausage - - it is a messy compromise. (no 100% monopoly) Even where we go down the legislative route there is always a lot of dialogue and compromise." (and payola)
Thinking that this implied a reluctance on their part to litigate, we then asked; Does the MPAA feel its legal actions, on behalf of its member companies, helps or deters transition P2P users to legal alternatives?
Garfield: "We think that it helps to move P2P users away from the illegitimate (ones that we can't monopolize) systems. When people understand that the risks and costs of engaging in this conduct are significant many of those people will stop. (so death threats are next) Not everyone does change their behavior and right now we are having the unintended effect of helping to move people from one illegal service to another. (oops) LimeWire has recently soared in popularity (it has? is this a trap?), because of the closure of other illegal P2P services. That is not lost on us. We are working on strategies to address that problem. (perhaps physical torture and violence?)
"Moreover, as we roll out more and more legitimate alternatives ( that we can monopolize) we will also have a greater impact (ream people for more overpriced content). We also know that many people, not Slyck readers but others, don't often recognize that downloading and posting movies via some P2P groups is illegal (they don't care) and some parents don't know what kinds of things their kids are doing on line. ( aka - consider suing the parents too) It is our hope that these suits will raise community awareness to piracy (boarding ships and murdering people? NOT! ) and its consequences (our cartel gets broken) and I think our legal actions help to achieve that goal." (to restore the cartel)
Statistics
Given that few would support commercial piracy, and given the poor publicity over the use of DRM, how much of their problem is directly caused by commercial piracy?
Garfield: "We are studying that issue, but do not have a real answer. Identifying the scope of the commercial versus
This is NO time to be messing with new taxes. The US economy has way too much debt, and anything that slows down online commerce is going to slaughter the industry and the US economy ....
There is way too much housing debt,
way too much credit card debt,
way too much municipal debt,
way too much state debt,
way too much federal debt,
way too much trade debt,
and there is way too much commercial and financial debt.
All it takes is a stupid little thing like this to slow things down a little and the people will have no choice but to default on some stuff which would almost certinly cascade and force a great depression, or even worse the US would print up money to pay down bad loans causing immediate hyperinflation. This is almost certinly NOT the time to be messing with macro economic tax increases.
rather than rehash ... http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169258&cid=141 07894
... please understand that their vision of the future of computing and the information age is very different from our vision of the future of computing and the information age. When they arrested those people for illegal copying and DMCA mod chip violations - hard prision time for simple copying is the rule of the game.
.... this is where it leads ... for everyone.
9 258
While I like video games as much as the next guy, I think it is very imporant for people to understand that online freedoms are more important than entertainment. And hard time is for people like mudders and thiefs who steal real property, not for those who make coppies of pretend properties such as "copyrights".
IMHO, people should really question the copyright system. If they take it to it's logical conclusion
essay: Straight Talk About Copyrights http://technocrat.net/article.pl?sid=05/11/25/132
No you havent, no amount of work on any product obligates a purchase. Anyone could see that if it was a physical item, and I went home and carpentered a replica for myself - that there is nothing wrong with that, but then all of a sudden they want the non physical items to have even more restrictive rules than the physical ones. Sorry, but the nature of the universe disagrees with you.
Lets say you're an artist of some kind such as a photographer, and you depend on the income from the sale of your photographs to feed your family and survive. Say you take a spectacular image that everyone wants to have on their wall. You sell some prints of this image, but one of your customers takes that image, scans it, and places it on the Internet for anyone to freely download. Now what has that done to you? That has just undermined compensation for your work.
That is very knee jerk if not irrelavent, even if they made all made photo money that way, there is no inherent right to restrict what people copy for whatever sweet reason one might offer. Maybe you won't get compensation unless you can restrict peoples speech too, so what?
According to the prevalent beliefs of the society at large, these men did something wrong. You may disagree, but that is your right. Just like if I took your credit card number and used it; you believe I did something wrong, but maybe I don't....
If you took my credit card and used it, then you using money would deprive me of that same money ... not so with simple plain content. That is a fact, not an opinion. Bottom line, or fact is that information has one set of natural characteristics and real property another. The opinions of society will not change that or the morality that accompanies that.
no, if I coppied a madonna cd and claimed to have wrote it, or claimed to be madonna when I didn't or wasn't then that would be fraud... but copying is just copying, there is nothing fradulent about it.
It is. It's profiting from illegal acts. The only possibly justifiable reason to ignore a law is for the greater public good (and even then it's rarely justified). Personal gain is about as low as you can get on the scale of justifications. Evil = Ignoring the well-being of other people in order to further your own well-being.
But that's the point, this isn't about maximizing revenue for certain entertainment sectors, it's about freedom from information controlls in the information age. Maybe the entertainment industry will suffer becasue of that ... it's a small price to pay.
Yes they were modding, but they were also loading games onto the hard drive that were not purchased. Therein lies the big "no-no"... It's just a game, but if nobody bought them, nobody would be able to play them.
What "no no" ... hard time for just copying stuff? It's just entertainment, the loss of some is a small price to pay for freedom of information in the information age.
I was more thinking of the xbox incident that happened a few days ago where some people were arrested and are facing hard time for simply modding and copying stuff onto xboxes. For christ sake, it is just a game.
They copied 77 games onto harddrives; just because they didn't actually go into Target and take 77 cases from the shelves doesn't stop it from being some sort of theft.
But it does, because theft is about what one looses, not by what one gains. The loss of a sale ... sure ... but that's not a theft in the slightest.
I won't be losing any sleep over some idiots pirating 70 games at a time per console.
Well you should be, because all they did is copy some stuff for their customers - hardly fellony class material. Perhaps calling it "piracy", like they would board ships and attack people makes it seem like they are worse than they really are. I don't know.
Either way, copying is still not stealing. Even if they did it for a profit, it is still not stealing. It is not like other crimes, like where if you stole my car - I wouldn't have it. Or like if you put a gun to my head and forced me to fix your sink, I'd be doing it against my will. Copying stuff, even if for profit, is simply not inherently evil.
I couldn't agree more. Gotta love my 360,
I don't know if it's a nice product, but it seems to me that the people behind it are real thugs. IMHO, that alone should be reason enough not to buy it.
This is entertainment, the people who were busted in LA for modding and copying XBOX stuff and are facing hard time, that is real life. IMHO, no amount of copying and moding over a game deserves hard time, there is a serious priority problem here, especially considering that it can be argued that they didn't do anything wrong at all. It's sorta hard to get in the spirit of new product launches with things like this going on.
Copying is not stealing. I repeat copying is not stealing. Hey my car, if you stole it I would be very violated - but if you made a copy, then hell have 2, in fact it's a geo metro, there are 10 million - I am not violated. Hey, it's bullshit morality. And if the entertainment industry can't make it in that kind of world, then tough shit. I like video games as much as the next guy, but not enough to hand over controll of contnet in the information age to the media lords.
Because it's not OK to profit off someone else'e work without their consent.
Prove it.
By that definition, anyone who has a copyright is a hyporcrite - because no one is an island, and all knowledge builds off of the work of others who put in prior knowledge. not to mention that spewing content all over the world, like it or not, is a form of consent.
It's my piece of whatever, to do with as I see fit. Why do you think you automatically have rights to whatever content I produce?
Then keep it to yourself and don't spew it all over the world and expect to control how I use it. In fact you can still do whatever the hell you want - it's your original copy pal. Rights? Perhaps you had some privacy rights before you spewed it all over the planet, anything else sounds like a personal problem buddy.
No, but if they see a barbie in the store that they like and renember with their photographic memory, then go home, then make their own plastic mold that's the exact same. Well, I'm sorry but the store has not been stolen from
Still the difference between the two is that in one case, they are losing sales to a competitor who has a superior product and in the other they are losing sales because someone wants to use their goods or services without paying for it.
One of these is a core principle of our capitalist society, and the other one isn't. Can you pick which one?
Yes actually I can, because one model centers arround using government to choke off the natural supply and demand of information for the sake of incentive while the other relies on natural supply and demand of services behind the information.
I think you better read this other essay I wrote ... http://technocrat.net/article.pl?sid=05/11/25/1329 258&mode=nocomment
What is with the entitlement?
Well, I am so glad you mentioned that. If you write a piece of whatever, why does society owe it to you microregulate how content is used all over the planent for the sake of you getting royalities. And owe it to you to do it in a way that chokes off freedom and the free flow of information in the information age? Sorry. If you're smart enough to write something usefull, then you're smart enough to figure out some other way of getting money without controlling how everyone else on the planet can copy information at their disposal.
If it's not wrong for personal use, then why should doing it for profit require hard jail time?
This content you are talking about is entertainment - copyrights and the need to restrict the free flow of information in the information age to impose them is about freedom. I like video games as much as the next guy, but when push comes to shove - freedom wins out every time.
Why should I not be allowed to purchase a book which the law says I may not copy?
I don't see any reason why you shouldn't if you want to, but in software (at least) I would recommend against it because it truely does limit your options both short term and long term - as well as empowers those who want to take away our freedom. If you must have that book, why not just copy it?