Those informercials don't come across as "shame on you." Only a person with a guilty conscience could derive that from them. They're definitely speaking of pirates as "other people" and appealing to the audience to share their point of view on piracy. Have you seen one?
Your assertion that the risk of job loss should prevent industries from moving on seems a little short-sighted.
Thanks for refreshing my memory about something I've asserted, especially when I had no idea I had asserted that industries shouldn't move on because of potential job loss. I'm so small-minded!
I will, however, reject your assertion that pirating movies and music paves the way to a better future for the world.
I also think you're wrong about communism; it shouldn't be the only form of government in the world.
I said that for no good reason, too. I'm not nice.
Just use the golden rule. Do unto others how you would have them do unto you. Stick to that, and temper it with a higher sense of fairness; don't just apply the golden rule to anarchy, try and empathize with people and imagine how you would like to be treated.
I'm not saying this to you, because you don't pirate. I'm saying this to the theives who run around talking about laws and fairness. Not to you or other honest folk.
If you've asserted that point before, it was dwarfed by other things you brought up.
I don't agree with you. If the audience were NOT the pirates, then of course, I would. Sadly, the audience is filled with people who download/distribute illegal content. Especially in college.
So, if you're trying to say a theater filled with college students is laughing because none of them are pirates and the infomercial is aimed at the wrong audience: BZZZT. Wrong answer, try again.
If so many people WEREN'T pirating; if pirating were something rare and occurred mainly in Taiwan, I'd agree with you. But your wrong; the audience is loaded with pirates.
Your reworking of my analogy is only shifting the labels around. The net effect is: someone loses money because people are getting the same service without paying. Shift the labels around all you want, it doesn't change the effect.
Your assertion that because the set-builder got paid up-front somehow protects him from losing a job because of less money in his employer's pockets is pretty contrived. Sure, he got paid for the last job, but is there a next job?
Whether he's full-time or on contract, less money coming in means fewer movies and less money to spend on movies. When the loss reaches a point, the full-time work force is reduced. Contract workers get fewer contracts. Getting paid up-front doesn't mitigate that. Whether it's up-front or after, less money coming in means less work for set-builders, actors, caterers, etc. Being paid for the last job is well and fine, but if there isn't another job to work in the future, what does that matter?
No matter how rich the movie industry is, even if it's sitting on trillions, if money is being lost, jobs will be lost with it.
The thing is, go read the laws; as an ordinary consumer, you have no fair use rights. Fair use is limited to reviewers, educators and the like. Ordinary consumers are not protected by any fair use laws at all.
But as to the "any means necessary" assertion, the only people I see stepping across the line into anything illegal are the pirates. The number of times the RIAA has committed an illegal act to fight piracy is how many? How many people pirate (distribute and/or download) movies? The pirates are, by far, the closest thing to robbers in this scenario.
As a capitalist/open market society, we have the freedom to choose many things, and have the power to change many things without trying to argue a morality point to the legislature. Your freedom is deep and is a weapon of infinite power.
Stop going to movies. Put on puppet shows for dying children instead. Or, if you just have to see a movie, only buy/rent from distributors who grant you the freedoms you want. If that means adjusting your tastes, do it; you don't want to cultivate a taste for the kinds of movies only the people who try to reduce your rights can produce, do you? Isn't that like buying crack and cursing your dealer? Unhook yourself, junkie. Get off it, if it's hurting you. Stop giving them money.
Just don't do it by stomping on THEIR rights as the owner of the copyrights. You might think it's for a greater good, but there's no such thing. It's hypocritical. Make the world the sort of place you want to live in. Just remember that the ends doesn't justify the means, and if you cut corners to get things how you want them, they won't stay that way for long because the people who want things different won't feel compelled to play fairly with you, if you don't play fairly with them.
It's stealing if you circumvent the encryption or download/distribute illegal copies.
When VHS first came out, it hurt them financially. They were losing money because people weren't going to the theaters as much and people copying VHS movies also hurt the new-founded VHS rental revenue stream. Eventually, they found a business model in VHS and DVD that was to their benefit. It took maybe 25-ish years for the business model to fully mature. Going backwards in time from this current maturity, VHS and DVD releases are less and less appealing.
In other words, VHS != lost revenue is a fact that developed; it wasn't always true.
Such as assertion regarding piracy is also not true at this point in time.
Piracy right now loses the movie industry money. Perhaps one day they'll find a way to make money off of piracy that is above and beyond the money the lose from it, but right now they lose money.
Being short-sighted is their problem. Helping them to see further into the future is not a valid excuse for circumventing encryption nor distributing illegal copies of their copyrighted works.
Why do you view giving someone money in exchange for something you want as robbery? Are they forcing you? No. Are you even mildly coerced? No. The choice to go see a movie is 100% yours, and there are PLENTY of alternatives that are GOOD alternatives, not cheesy imitations. Don't willingly go to a movie, pay to get in, then whine about the experience and call it being robbed. Jesus.
It's not the movie industry's job to stand up for your rights. It's their job to stand up for theirs, and that's what they're doing.
That would require some creative business modelling. I won't say it's impossible for them to actually make MORE money with piracy than without, but it's not likely.
Without a clear business model to support a "piracy=more money" statement, they have only their current business model, in which piracy equates to lost revenue, and therefore lost jobs.
Not as an ordinary consumer. As an educator, reviewer, etc. (i.e., very atypical) consumer, you have some very restricted additional rights. As an ordinary consumer, no.
Sorry for the confusion...I am only speaking of the rights of an ordinary consumer. I'll try to clarify that from now on, but I think the context of this discussion should have been enough for you to know what I meant.
First of all, what you posted says nothing about the fair use rights of the consumer. It merely limits the rights of a sound copyright owner to copying the sounds themselves, not imitated sounds.
What might help your argument would be what you left out:
The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1), (2), and (3) of section 106 do not apply to sound recordings included in educational television and radio programs (as defined in section 397 of title 47) distributed or transmitted by or through public broadcasting entities (as defined by section 118(g)): Provided, That copies or phonorecords of said programs are not commercially distributed by or through public broadcasting entities to the general public.
But clearly, we are not talking about educational use here. We're talking about circumventing encryption and the rights of the consumer (non-owner) to use copyrighted works.
Don't go to the movie then. What a fucking whiner. You pay $20 to see a movie and then complain about it. Don't go asshole!
The fact is: if preventing piracy makes the movie industry more money, then NOT preventing piracy loses them money. The less money they make, the fewer jobs there are. Therefore, movie piracy leads to job loss in the industry. It's a very simple principle that governs every single industry you can possibly work in: less money means less work.
Whether you empathize with the guy because he's an IT worker or don't empathize with him because he works in the movie industry is immaterial. If it's wrong, it's wrong. Whether or not you care about a particular person or an industry means jack fucking squat.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include
Fair use does not permit you to make copies at-will. You don't define the terms of your fair usage; section 107 does, and any additional rights can only be granted to you by the copyright owner.
Fair use also does not grant you the right to circumvent copy protections, nor does it prevent the copyright owner from applying copyright protections. Meaning, section 107 doesn't make it legal to remove encryption from a copyrighted work.
You don't have to agree to it. You have NO rights to the copyrighted material, only the copyright owner has any rights to it. The only way you have any right to even view it is by recognizing the copyright owner's grant of limited rights to you. If you don't recognize those limited rights, then you, by default, have ZERO rights to even possess the material.
No, it's not a civil issue. There are hard laws protecting the copyright owner.
There is no law that says I can or cannot wave twice at my neighbor. If I wave twice at my neighbor, I have that freedom. If I enter into a contract with my neighbor that says "I will never wave twice at you," that is a civil issue. If I wave twice at them, they can sue me for breach of contract, but otherwise it's not illegal. It's entirely a civil issue.
If there was a law that said "you may only wave at your neighbor if they grant you permission to do so" then waving at my neighbor without their approval is a crime. If I enter into a contract with the neighbor that says "I will only wave at you twice when you wink at me" then I am permitted to wave twice at the neighbor when he winks at me. But if I wave twice at him when he has not winked at me, that is a crime.
Do you understand why?
It's simple. The law is not repealed automatically by the contract. The law stands firmly, as-is, and is only modified by the contract. When the contract is breached, the contract determines what happens when the breach occurs, and in lieu of specific remedy, the law takes effect.
The law is quite plain. I cannot wave twice at my neighbor without their permission. I have permission to wave twice when he winks at me. I waved twice without the approving wink first. I am not only in breach of contract, I have broken the law. I can be prosecuted criminally, then sued in civil court.
Such it is with copyright laws. You are granted permission to use the copyrighted material in the manner set forth by the copyright owner. But the copyright laws say that the copyright owner is the only person who has the right to control the material. So, if I use the material in any way contrary to the license granted to me, not only am I in breach of that contract, I have committed a crime.
On the broadcast flag issue, I agree, but only because it makes the assumption that it's right to force receiver manufacturers to perform the work of enforcing copyrights that should rest on the shoulders of the copyright owner. The copyright owners should simply encode their content, and then license decryption only to the manufacturers they want to have that ability. Manufacturers should remain free to receive unencoded content, legally and without obligations, or optionally receive encoded content and then they are bound to the terms of the license they must agree to in order to decode that content.
It should be consumer-driven, the way DVDs are, not legislated.
The subject was job loss. When someone's put out of good, valid, work, it's not something to laugh at. The reason behind it is immaterial. If you laugh at someone whose industry is experiencing job loss, you're a scumbag. That's what that particular thread was about: laughing at people losing their job.
If there is no lost sale, why fight piracy? What does the RIAA have to gain by fighting piracy?
Ponder this briefly: the RIAA wipes out all movie piracy. What is their gain? What happens in their favor that doesn't happen now with piracy happening?
The answer: more money. If they wipe out movie piracy, they will make more money.
It's broken logic to say that piracy doesn't lose them any money, when a complete lack of piracy gains them money. They're intertwined, irrevocably.
No, this is not your domain, this is a public issue. Lobby to get the broadcast flag recognition requirement removed from all receiver manufacturers. That's your right.
If the copyright owner says "I will sell you a copy of this content, provided you abide by my rules, otherwise you can fuck off" then guess what? That's your deal, right there. You don't get to alter the deal to suit your purposes; you have no right to control that content in ANY WAY. You have only two choices: pay for a copy and use it according to the rules of the copyright owner, or don't buy it. If you don't like the deal, you have one right, and one right only: don't buy the copy of the content.
It's your right, but you're laughing at someone defending their livelihood.
What do you do for a living? I'll assume you roof houses.
What if some religious group who was against people charging for labor started roaming the streets fixing people's roofs for free? What if it put a lot of people out of business?
What if we met on the street, and you said to me "I wish those freaks would stop fixing people's roofs for free, it's going to put me out of a job soon" and then I LAUGHED IN YOUR FACE?
What? Not funny?
The truth is, the movie industry is far from going bankrupt. But if you reduce profits, you reduce jobs. That particular worker you laugh at might never be out of work...or he might be the next person to find himself unemployed. Regardless of his situation, when fewers movies are made, when profit margins drop, people lose their jobs.
That's just how it is.
So, laugh at the guy if you want to. But know you're laughing at a working man who is making a statement to protect his livelihood.
Slashdot Mirror
Coward.
Petty theif.
Those informercials don't come across as "shame on you." Only a person with a guilty conscience could derive that from them. They're definitely speaking of pirates as "other people" and appealing to the audience to share their point of view on piracy. Have you seen one?
Your assertion that the risk of job loss should prevent industries from moving on seems a little short-sighted.
Thanks for refreshing my memory about something I've asserted, especially when I had no idea I had asserted that industries shouldn't move on because of potential job loss. I'm so small-minded!
I will, however, reject your assertion that pirating movies and music paves the way to a better future for the world.
I also think you're wrong about communism; it shouldn't be the only form of government in the world.
You don't have to be nice. I'm not nice. Watch.
Fuck you shitbag.
I said that for no good reason, too. I'm not nice.
Just use the golden rule. Do unto others how you would have them do unto you. Stick to that, and temper it with a higher sense of fairness; don't just apply the golden rule to anarchy, try and empathize with people and imagine how you would like to be treated.
I'm not saying this to you, because you don't pirate. I'm saying this to the theives who run around talking about laws and fairness. Not to you or other honest folk.
If you've asserted that point before, it was dwarfed by other things you brought up.
I don't agree with you. If the audience were NOT the pirates, then of course, I would. Sadly, the audience is filled with people who download/distribute illegal content. Especially in college.
So, if you're trying to say a theater filled with college students is laughing because none of them are pirates and the infomercial is aimed at the wrong audience: BZZZT. Wrong answer, try again.
If so many people WEREN'T pirating; if pirating were something rare and occurred mainly in Taiwan, I'd agree with you. But your wrong; the audience is loaded with pirates.
Your reworking of my analogy is only shifting the labels around. The net effect is: someone loses money because people are getting the same service without paying. Shift the labels around all you want, it doesn't change the effect.
Your assertion that because the set-builder got paid up-front somehow protects him from losing a job because of less money in his employer's pockets is pretty contrived. Sure, he got paid for the last job, but is there a next job?
Whether he's full-time or on contract, less money coming in means fewer movies and less money to spend on movies. When the loss reaches a point, the full-time work force is reduced. Contract workers get fewer contracts. Getting paid up-front doesn't mitigate that. Whether it's up-front or after, less money coming in means less work for set-builders, actors, caterers, etc. Being paid for the last job is well and fine, but if there isn't another job to work in the future, what does that matter?
No matter how rich the movie industry is, even if it's sitting on trillions, if money is being lost, jobs will be lost with it.
The thing is, go read the laws; as an ordinary consumer, you have no fair use rights. Fair use is limited to reviewers, educators and the like. Ordinary consumers are not protected by any fair use laws at all.
But as to the "any means necessary" assertion, the only people I see stepping across the line into anything illegal are the pirates. The number of times the RIAA has committed an illegal act to fight piracy is how many? How many people pirate (distribute and/or download) movies? The pirates are, by far, the closest thing to robbers in this scenario.
As a capitalist/open market society, we have the freedom to choose many things, and have the power to change many things without trying to argue a morality point to the legislature. Your freedom is deep and is a weapon of infinite power.
Stop going to movies. Put on puppet shows for dying children instead. Or, if you just have to see a movie, only buy/rent from distributors who grant you the freedoms you want. If that means adjusting your tastes, do it; you don't want to cultivate a taste for the kinds of movies only the people who try to reduce your rights can produce, do you? Isn't that like buying crack and cursing your dealer? Unhook yourself, junkie. Get off it, if it's hurting you. Stop giving them money.
Just don't do it by stomping on THEIR rights as the owner of the copyrights. You might think it's for a greater good, but there's no such thing. It's hypocritical. Make the world the sort of place you want to live in. Just remember that the ends doesn't justify the means, and if you cut corners to get things how you want them, they won't stay that way for long because the people who want things different won't feel compelled to play fairly with you, if you don't play fairly with them.
It's stealing if you circumvent the encryption or download/distribute illegal copies.
If you want to live in a fair world, play fair.
You're jumping around in your timeline.
When VHS first came out, it hurt them financially. They were losing money because people weren't going to the theaters as much and people copying VHS movies also hurt the new-founded VHS rental revenue stream. Eventually, they found a business model in VHS and DVD that was to their benefit. It took maybe 25-ish years for the business model to fully mature. Going backwards in time from this current maturity, VHS and DVD releases are less and less appealing.
In other words, VHS != lost revenue is a fact that developed; it wasn't always true.
Such as assertion regarding piracy is also not true at this point in time.
Piracy right now loses the movie industry money. Perhaps one day they'll find a way to make money off of piracy that is above and beyond the money the lose from it, but right now they lose money.
Being short-sighted is their problem. Helping them to see further into the future is not a valid excuse for circumventing encryption nor distributing illegal copies of their copyrighted works.
Why do you view giving someone money in exchange for something you want as robbery? Are they forcing you? No. Are you even mildly coerced? No. The choice to go see a movie is 100% yours, and there are PLENTY of alternatives that are GOOD alternatives, not cheesy imitations. Don't willingly go to a movie, pay to get in, then whine about the experience and call it being robbed. Jesus.
It's not the movie industry's job to stand up for your rights. It's their job to stand up for theirs, and that's what they're doing.
That would require some creative business modelling. I won't say it's impossible for them to actually make MORE money with piracy than without, but it's not likely.
Without a clear business model to support a "piracy=more money" statement, they have only their current business model, in which piracy equates to lost revenue, and therefore lost jobs.
Uhm, if you think saying so makes it so, okay.
Not as an ordinary consumer. As an educator, reviewer, etc. (i.e., very atypical) consumer, you have some very restricted additional rights. As an ordinary consumer, no.
How has the Java Desktop been received? I recall very recently a scathing article by P.J. on exactly that subject.
Thievery is just thievery.
Sorry for the confusion...I am only speaking of the rights of an ordinary consumer. I'll try to clarify that from now on, but I think the context of this discussion should have been enough for you to know what I meant.
First of all, what you posted says nothing about the fair use rights of the consumer. It merely limits the rights of a sound copyright owner to copying the sounds themselves, not imitated sounds.
What might help your argument would be what you left out:
The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1), (2), and (3) of section 106 do not apply to sound recordings included in educational television and radio programs (as defined in section 397 of title 47) distributed or transmitted by or through public broadcasting entities (as defined by section 118(g)): Provided, That copies or phonorecords of said programs are not commercially distributed by or through public broadcasting entities to the general public.
But clearly, we are not talking about educational use here. We're talking about circumventing encryption and the rights of the consumer (non-owner) to use copyrighted works.
Don't go to the movie then. What a fucking whiner. You pay $20 to see a movie and then complain about it. Don't go asshole!
The fact is: if preventing piracy makes the movie industry more money, then NOT preventing piracy loses them money. The less money they make, the fewer jobs there are. Therefore, movie piracy leads to job loss in the industry. It's a very simple principle that governs every single industry you can possibly work in: less money means less work.
Whether you empathize with the guy because he's an IT worker or don't empathize with him because he works in the movie industry is immaterial. If it's wrong, it's wrong. Whether or not you care about a particular person or an industry means jack fucking squat.
Dumbass.
Since you brought it up:
Section 107 states:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include
Fair use does not permit you to make copies at-will. You don't define the terms of your fair usage; section 107 does, and any additional rights can only be granted to you by the copyright owner.
Fair use also does not grant you the right to circumvent copy protections, nor does it prevent the copyright owner from applying copyright protections. Meaning, section 107 doesn't make it legal to remove encryption from a copyrighted work.
Clearly, you don't understand section 107.
Talk about simple-minded...anyone who uses the word 'terrorist' to add weight to an otherwise moronic argument.
Oh yeah, you're the king of deep-thinkers, A/C.
You don't have to agree to it. You have NO rights to the copyrighted material, only the copyright owner has any rights to it. The only way you have any right to even view it is by recognizing the copyright owner's grant of limited rights to you. If you don't recognize those limited rights, then you, by default, have ZERO rights to even possess the material.
No, it's not a civil issue. There are hard laws protecting the copyright owner.
There is no law that says I can or cannot wave twice at my neighbor. If I wave twice at my neighbor, I have that freedom. If I enter into a contract with my neighbor that says "I will never wave twice at you," that is a civil issue. If I wave twice at them, they can sue me for breach of contract, but otherwise it's not illegal. It's entirely a civil issue.
If there was a law that said "you may only wave at your neighbor if they grant you permission to do so" then waving at my neighbor without their approval is a crime. If I enter into a contract with the neighbor that says "I will only wave at you twice when you wink at me" then I am permitted to wave twice at the neighbor when he winks at me. But if I wave twice at him when he has not winked at me, that is a crime.
Do you understand why?
It's simple. The law is not repealed automatically by the contract. The law stands firmly, as-is, and is only modified by the contract. When the contract is breached, the contract determines what happens when the breach occurs, and in lieu of specific remedy, the law takes effect.
The law is quite plain. I cannot wave twice at my neighbor without their permission. I have permission to wave twice when he winks at me. I waved twice without the approving wink first. I am not only in breach of contract, I have broken the law. I can be prosecuted criminally, then sued in civil court.
Such it is with copyright laws. You are granted permission to use the copyrighted material in the manner set forth by the copyright owner. But the copyright laws say that the copyright owner is the only person who has the right to control the material. So, if I use the material in any way contrary to the license granted to me, not only am I in breach of that contract, I have committed a crime.
On the broadcast flag issue, I agree, but only because it makes the assumption that it's right to force receiver manufacturers to perform the work of enforcing copyrights that should rest on the shoulders of the copyright owner. The copyright owners should simply encode their content, and then license decryption only to the manufacturers they want to have that ability. Manufacturers should remain free to receive unencoded content, legally and without obligations, or optionally receive encoded content and then they are bound to the terms of the license they must agree to in order to decode that content.
It should be consumer-driven, the way DVDs are, not legislated.
The subject was job loss. When someone's put out of good, valid, work, it's not something to laugh at. The reason behind it is immaterial. If you laugh at someone whose industry is experiencing job loss, you're a scumbag. That's what that particular thread was about: laughing at people losing their job.
Your logic doesn't hold water.
If there is no lost sale, why fight piracy? What does the RIAA have to gain by fighting piracy?
Ponder this briefly: the RIAA wipes out all movie piracy. What is their gain? What happens in their favor that doesn't happen now with piracy happening?
The answer: more money. If they wipe out movie piracy, they will make more money.
It's broken logic to say that piracy doesn't lose them any money, when a complete lack of piracy gains them money. They're intertwined, irrevocably.
No, this is not your domain, this is a public issue. Lobby to get the broadcast flag recognition requirement removed from all receiver manufacturers. That's your right.
Who says?
You?
Are you the copyright owner?
No.
If the copyright owner says "I will sell you a copy of this content, provided you abide by my rules, otherwise you can fuck off" then guess what? That's your deal, right there. You don't get to alter the deal to suit your purposes; you have no right to control that content in ANY WAY. You have only two choices: pay for a copy and use it according to the rules of the copyright owner, or don't buy it. If you don't like the deal, you have one right, and one right only: don't buy the copy of the content.
It's pretty simple.
It's your right, but you're laughing at someone defending their livelihood.
What do you do for a living? I'll assume you roof houses.
What if some religious group who was against people charging for labor started roaming the streets fixing people's roofs for free? What if it put a lot of people out of business?
What if we met on the street, and you said to me "I wish those freaks would stop fixing people's roofs for free, it's going to put me out of a job soon" and then I LAUGHED IN YOUR FACE?
What? Not funny?
The truth is, the movie industry is far from going bankrupt. But if you reduce profits, you reduce jobs. That particular worker you laugh at might never be out of work...or he might be the next person to find himself unemployed. Regardless of his situation, when fewers movies are made, when profit margins drop, people lose their jobs.
That's just how it is.
So, laugh at the guy if you want to. But know you're laughing at a working man who is making a statement to protect his livelihood.
You're my hero.