Guilty until proven innocent. I don't like your style.
Yeah, that Scott Peterson, hasn't been convictied of murdering his wife. Why is he in jail??? He hasn't been found guilty yet. Look, this is all about building a case against the infringers and a judge HAS okayed it. Read the article. The JUDGE said give the information up.
As if a discovery subpoena has never been used for an illegitimate purpose.
As if the guilty don't try to hide behind unreasonable arguments for "privacy."
You said "court order". The DMCA says they need no such thing. That's what this fight is over. RIAA didn't start with a court order for Verizon to provide these people's identity.
According to the article, a judge is involved. The order for Verizon to give up the names comes from a Judge John Bates, US District Court. A subpeona has to come from the court, and so it was filed with the court. It is simply that the misuse of P2P networks is so widespread that there is little need to prove that illegal activity is going on and it is granted automatically.
Yeah, those potato hips at the market are overpriced. I'll just take them for a five finger discount. You know, its a free market... FREE being the operaive word.
must file a LAWSUIT against them...After that, you may issue subpoenas to 'discover' information, such as their identity...
So, in your amazing logic, how do I sue someone who's identity I do not know? That's what this is about, getting the information to sue these bastards. I guess, again in your logic, that since we do not know who they are, they are immune to prosecution. q.e.d.
...but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation...
There is probable cause. Theres a load of songs for download for free, that anyone can see by using the P2P search engine. Sounds like probable cause to me.
I don't think this is a subpoena, this sounds like discovery. In other words, a lawyer has sumitted a legal brief through the court requesting that Verizon give them the information they want. This is a common use of the court. The court also backs up the action of the plaitiff.
This does not mean that any compnay in the future can get information about you without probable cause. In this case, the probable cause is on the P2P network for everyone to see.
Actually, I make independent films and my partner runs an independent music label. We are not part of the RIAA, but we need to protect our material as well. This is not fight of Corporation vs. the little guy, but thieves (you) versus the artists (me).
Your privacy deserves to be gone if you commit an illegal act.
I assume you mean this in a more narrow sense than you stated it. Note that neither of those two Verizon customers has been convicted of anything. They have only been accused. Are you saying anyone accused by corporation of doing something illegal deserves to lose their privacy?
They are not convicted, correct. But they are obviously involved in copyright violation. They are being idetified for prosecution. They will still have a right to defend themselves in court. BTW: Last I saw, a corporation can read your e-mails on the company network, check your desk, etc., if they suspect you of anything. It all belongs to the company, kind of like how these criminals do not own Verizon but are renting its use.
you? Verizon is fighting on behalf of all ISPs. Other services would be less able to fight this than Verizon.
There is not fight here. The ISP will not be charged with anything as the DMCA allows the ISP to remain guiltless in the transaction across its gateway. The ISP will not remain guiltless if it doesn't comply with the court order. Its like if I am a landlord and you are sellng drugs from your apartment, I have to help the cops nab you, but I am not going to be held liable for drug dealing myself.
Privacy? You are distributing copies of music in violation of copyright laws, publically, everyone can see the materials that are being illegally traded. And you want your privacy- privacy to maintain your ill gotten collection?
The only one who's rights are being trampled here are the copyright holders.
You said "many of the students bought it and copied it for friends.". I assumed you were referring to kids copying CDs for their friends. If you really meant kids spreading files around on Kazaa, you should laugh at yourself.
Why? Because it's on Kazaa? Is that funny?
BTW: I attached two points together. My point is that many on/. has equated the use of Kazaa with sharing with friends. My point about the kids is that it is more immoral to steal it when you know it is to help someone.
What you really mean are "exclusive rights". Also, the right to pursue a profit is not exclusive. A radio station can play your music for a profit and simply pay a compulsory license for it.
Yes, exactly. Certain rights are established in how they are to be used, such as compulsory licensing for covers, radio play, etc. Radio gets a special deal- they only need to play performance through the performance rights agencies (ASCAP, BMI) but do not have to give the labels any cash in exchange for radio's advertising of songs. All of this is precident, all has been established, but you want to throw all that out and let free mass distribution happen via new technologies?
The whole point of copyright is to provide authors with an incentive to create content which will enrich the public domain. The public temporarily gives up its rights to copy and publish certain original works in return for authors creating those works.
Again, I concur. Just as with patents copyright allows me to have an advantage in a marketplace with my ideas. A head start. During this time it is implicit that I have the choice to give it away, distribute it myself or barter the rights to someone else, and have legal repercussion on those who would interfere with that.
I also agree that items must fall into the public domain because just like patented inventions, new ideas build upon those of the past. Would we have Indiana Jones if not for Allan Quatermain? The legal precedent for Public Domain was set in the mid-1700s in English court. Up to then when a publisher bought the rights to an author's work it was perpetual. Thankfully, this case changed that because the fledgling USA was quite aware of the need to grant and administer Copyright. I think the original term was 14 years plus 14 more under special circumstance. I believe the Constitution gives Congress the authority to set a Copyright term of finite length. As it is today, 95 years, or life+70 is almost perpetual, at least to those of you who will not live for thousands of years like me- ha ha!
If it was up to me I would reduce the copyright term significantly allowing much of the past to become public domain. Just as filmmakers had a chance to build on the ledgend of Dracula (which was in the public domain) via their numerous interpretations, we should see people building on the creations of the 20th Century.
For instance, I would love to retell "Gone With The Wind," but place it in a more realistic Confederate South. Then, people could view both and engage in debate about each version. As it is, those characters and incidents are not becoming public domain any time soon, even though everyone involved in the original publishing of the book and the creation of the film are dead.
I know a number of science fiction/horror writers felt that sharing characters and events were important to building literature. HP Lovecraft, Burroughs and a bunch of other contemporaries would have their character pop up in the other's authors stories, or even create a new story in the other's literary world. Some wonderful things came because of that.
Anyone could publish and sell a thousand copies of "Lord of the Rings". Competition would drive prices down to the cost of production.
Yes, but does this guarantee the autor compensation for his work? For how long? BTW: Tor books found a loophole in the Copyright laws of England in the 60s and published their own edition of Lord Of The Rings in America
I'm so glad that you understand the concept of fair use so incredibly well.
Evidently, you don't. Fair Use does let you make copies of your media for backup. Also, labels realize you make jam discs or give copies to one or two friends. Big deal. But using Kazaa or similar services is releasing the material to millions of potential downloaders. Mass distribution = PIRACY
The reason the industry wants to put copy protection on media is not to stop you from making personal backups or giving it to one or two friends, but because so many feel it is their right to willy nilly distribute the material world wide. It is like if your mom puts a cookie jar on the table and says, "you can have one a day." One night your brother eats them all. Then she takes the jar away because she can't trust him to follow simple rules. Unfortuantly, he ruined the deal for you
Fair Use is a moral right, but does not apply to those with no morals. If you want the right to make copies for yourself, to freely move the material to your MP3 player, then don't defend the pirates! They are runining it for you!
Actually, because of the Napster case more people now than then use P2P services, especially Kazaa. That lawsuit opened many eyes to the potential for FREE music. As for USENET downloading, the amount of people who did that was insignificant. During that time the largest pirates were professionals who duplicated CDs and Cassetts and sold them on the black market. Cops would bust them and jail them. Kazaa, et. al., has made piracy so easy AOL users can do it, and now there are more songs being stolen than the pros used to do.
You are trying to elevate copyright to a level at which it does not belong.
And you are trying to mutate free speech to encompass the wholesale stealing of art. Precedents on Fair Use have been haded down for years specifically defining what is Fair Use and what is not. For instance, you have the right to quote something someone has written, say a book, for your writing as long as proper credit is given. However, you do not have the right to just copy and distribute that book, which is esentially what is happening via P2P. Suddenly, since this is online and new technology we have to throw out all the precedents?
The truth is, you like to get something for free and you fear that you will lose that "right." It is not the right of Fair Use, the courts are upholding that this is not Fair Use. As for trading the CD at the school, come on, it was for charity. I don't mind if someone shares with a friend or makes a jam disc. Big deal. But I have to laugh when Kazaa is equated to sharing with friends. How many of those people do you know? Is a million people around the world your friend.
I happen to think built-in search functionality is a good thing.
Of course. Again this omes down to making it easy to find material, mainly pirated.
It is also no surprise that a recession hits entertainment harder than other industries (who's going to buy a shiney new CD for their kids right after losing their job?).
Actually, spending on entertainment is up. Last year the Movie industry had a record year. DVDs sold off the shelfs. CDs went down??? The reason: DIVX movies, even RIPS from DVDs, do not look as good as DVDs or support multichnel audio and commentry tracks, and they take longer to download. CDs ripped to MP3 sound almost as good as the original and you can get a 1000 down in a night via broadband.
But this is not an economic issue, but a moral one. I write a song, I get the rights to first publishing, the right to distribte the sound recording the way I want to, and the right to profit from public performance via radio and live. I will not give up these rights because of you.
I wish all of you would stop pretending you have some right to tell people how they should do business and admit you enjoy getting something for nothing.
BTW: I meant the right to persue a profit. My mistake. But I believe I have the right to a fair and equitable marketplace to either rise or fail in. The law is the same online as in the real world. Stealing is stealing.
I have a right to copy wether the constitution says so or not too.
Copyright does not mean you cannot make copies, but you cannot do mass distribution. I think you ae confused. Fair Use allows you to be able to make a backup of a CD or DVD. However, companies are forced to try and stop even these uses because so many use these tools in ways outside of Fair Use guidelines. Take Kazaa. I believe you can dub a copy and give it to a friend. Put it on Kazaa and millons can access it. Are they all your friends? Take a VCR, for instance: it is great to record and time shift shows and save TV movies to watch again and again, or to give your friend. However, use a bunch of VCRs to mass duplicate movies and distribute something, that is piracy. Kazaa makes it easy to mass distribute materials and is in clear violation of Fair Use rules.
copyright is granted by congress, and congress can take it away
And Congress has given. I will protect my right to stop you from distributing my content under law.
No one has a right to profit. Oh, and the internet itself is a p2p network.
Symantics. Perhaps I should have said the right to persue profit which is happiness for me. What a nitpicker you are. Anything to win your arugument. As for the internet.... so? I'm talking about specific apps, Kazaa, et. al.
The record industry reported record profits during a slumping economy while Napster was in full swing.
Sales are down over 11% over all. The 12-25 year olds have seen the largest fall. Conincidentally, they are the ones who have grown up with this technology!
Here's an example of honesty: After the Twin Towers incident my company teamed with the United Way to release a benefit single called The Phoenix. We sold it at several High Schools but sales were not as high as we hoped. Turned out many of the students bought it and copied it for friends. The sad part is that 100% of gross went to the United Way (we wrote off the manufacture costs), but many went unsold and I cannot help but blame the kids who grew up with illegal copying.
merchandising is key. This is where the real money is made. You just need to know about marketing.
I do. The best fight against online piracy is too give the consumer a better product. Remeber LP's with their great artwork? CD packaging suffers from repetition and boredom. The booklets are boring. I believe that you have to put more into the whole package to create increase desire of ownership. That is why DVD movies are selling better than music CDs. A CD is just a collection of a few singles, filler songs and boring packaging. It encourages sharing.
As for using P2P to advertise, I agree. If it works for you, do it. However, for those who do not want to participate we cannot control what is released or not. Worse, we cannot control quality. P2P needs a system to let anyone who does not want their material traded to "opt out."
The problem is that the copyright term has been extended to a virtual infinite length of time.
Agreed. Although I do not agree on 14+14, I like LIFE+50 (could be lower, say Life+25) because I would hate to see what people do to my characters when they become pubic domain!!! But you are right, Copyright is far too long, especially in regards to Corporations (95 years!!!!!!).
Look, your connection to the internet is like renting an apartment. If you were duplication on CD-R mass copies of CDs and distributing them from the apartment cops would come and bust you. It is th same thing. You have a virtual address being used for illegal, anonymous transfer of someone elses material. Same deal as finding you in real life, just applied to the web, and not a moment too soon.
Finally, artists and labels (both big and small or independent) have some teeth to get you!
Then I'm sure you're aware, that for every one like you that makes it - there are litterally thousands who copyrights haven't helped a bit, even restricted. Respect of copyrights has never earned it's support, and part of the problem is that copyrights cause alot of information to be valued by how much attention they get and not by how usefull or valuable it really is.
Actually, anyone at any level who is a writer, songwriter, etc., needs to Copyright their work with the Library of Congree to protect themselves from intellectual theft. It is inexpensive and neccessary.
Well, don't break the law and pirate artists work and it seems to me you shouldn't have any problem.
No one is corrupt except the thieves who, rather than acknowledging their wrongs, instead justify it with spurious arguments.
So you are saying that creative works (books, music, movies, games, etc.) are fair game to copy because of free speech. The constitution guarantees anyone the right to profit from their creative works for a limited time to protect against illegal copying of works. Copyright is the right of the materials creator to designate who can copy and distribute a certain work.
Better question: where is the moral right to profit from my own creativity???
I am a filmmaker and my partner is a music producer. Not major label, but I'll tell you,we make a living creating material that people like to see and hear. P2P is going to kill us. It is not only the Corps who need these abilities to protect themselves from pirates like you, and so steal my work and I will use these and any other tools to protect my work.
>Internet service providers (including universities)
>might add a flat monthly surcharge to the fees
>they charge for Internet access.
Suppose I don't download music at all. Why do I have to pay the fee? Because I might do it?
Also, If someone downloads 100s per month, shouldn't he pay more than someone who downloads 10?
This is the problem wit the open source movement. All that is ever done is copy copy copy. Forget making it look like Win 2000... make it better and easier to use. And make apps that are better than those on Windows. An example of failure: GIMP is a knockoff one or two steps behind Photoshop. Make it better than Photoshop and I will use it. Make an operating system easier than Windows and get me software, lots of it, and I am there.
But hen again, until Photshop, Quark Xpress and After Effects are available for Linux there is nop chance of my conversion.
I'm buying XBox Live! When I get it, if it comes down to the choice of whether to buy a title from one company or another, say an NHL game in EA's case, I'll buy the one with Xbox Live capability.
See, supporting Xbox Live is about making me, the consumer, happy by having an easy to use, secure system. You don't support it, well, F*CK YOU, I'll buy a competitors game. Cut yourself out of my choice list
Slashdot Mirror
Guilty until proven innocent. I don't like your style.
Yeah, that Scott Peterson, hasn't been convictied of murdering his wife. Why is he in jail??? He hasn't been found guilty yet. Look, this is all about building a case against the infringers and a judge HAS okayed it. Read the article. The JUDGE said give the information up.
As if a discovery subpoena has never been used for an illegitimate purpose.
As if the guilty don't try to hide behind unreasonable arguments for "privacy."
You said "court order". The DMCA says they need no such thing. That's what this fight is over. RIAA didn't start with a court order for Verizon to provide these people's identity.
According to the article, a judge is involved. The order for Verizon to give up the names comes from a Judge John Bates, US District Court. A subpeona has to come from the court, and so it was filed with the court. It is simply that the misuse of P2P networks is so widespread that there is little need to prove that illegal activity is going on and it is granted automatically.
Yeah, those potato hips at the market are overpriced. I'll just take them for a five finger discount. You know, its a free market... FREE being the operaive word.
must file a LAWSUIT against them...After that, you may issue subpoenas to 'discover' information, such as their identity...
So, in your amazing logic, how do I sue someone who's identity I do not know? That's what this is about, getting the information to sue these bastards. I guess, again in your logic, that since we do not know who they are, they are immune to prosecution. q.e.d.
There is probable cause. Theres a load of songs for download for free, that anyone can see by using the P2P search engine. Sounds like probable cause to me.
I don't think this is a subpoena, this sounds like discovery. In other words, a lawyer has sumitted a legal brief through the court requesting that Verizon give them the information they want. This is a common use of the court. The court also backs up the action of the plaitiff.
This does not mean that any compnay in the future can get information about you without probable cause. In this case, the probable cause is on the P2P network for everyone to see.
Actually, I make independent films and my partner runs an independent music label. We are not part of the RIAA, but we need to protect our material as well. This is not fight of Corporation vs. the little guy, but thieves (you) versus the artists (me).
Your privacy deserves to be gone if you commit an illegal act.
I assume you mean this in a more narrow sense than you stated it. Note that neither of those two Verizon customers has been convicted of anything. They have only been accused. Are you saying anyone accused by corporation of doing something illegal deserves to lose their privacy?
They are not convicted, correct. But they are obviously involved in copyright violation. They are being idetified for prosecution. They will still have a right to defend themselves in court. BTW: Last I saw, a corporation can read your e-mails on the company network, check your desk, etc., if they suspect you of anything. It all belongs to the company, kind of like how these criminals do not own Verizon but are renting its use.
you? Verizon is fighting on behalf of all ISPs. Other services would be less able to fight this than Verizon.
There is not fight here. The ISP will not be charged with anything as the DMCA allows the ISP to remain guiltless in the transaction across its gateway. The ISP will not remain guiltless if it doesn't comply with the court order. Its like if I am a landlord and you are sellng drugs from your apartment, I have to help the cops nab you, but I am not going to be held liable for drug dealing myself.
Privacy? You are distributing copies of music in violation of copyright laws, publically, everyone can see the materials that are being illegally traded. And you want your privacy- privacy to maintain your ill gotten collection?
The only one who's rights are being trampled here are the copyright holders.
You said "many of the students bought it and copied it for friends.". I assumed you were referring to kids copying CDs for their friends. If you really meant kids spreading files around on Kazaa, you should laugh at yourself.
Why? Because it's on Kazaa? Is that funny?
BTW: I attached two points together. My point is that many on /. has equated the use of Kazaa with sharing with friends. My point about the kids is that it is more immoral to steal it when you know it is to help someone.
What you really mean are "exclusive rights". Also, the right to pursue a profit is not exclusive. A radio station can play your music for a profit and simply pay a compulsory license for it.
Yes, exactly. Certain rights are established in how they are to be used, such as compulsory licensing for covers, radio play, etc. Radio gets a special deal- they only need to play performance through the performance rights agencies (ASCAP, BMI) but do not have to give the labels any cash in exchange for radio's advertising of songs. All of this is precident, all has been established, but you want to throw all that out and let free mass distribution happen via new technologies?
The whole point of copyright is to provide authors with an incentive to create content which will enrich the public domain. The public temporarily gives up its rights to copy and publish certain original works in return for authors creating those works.
Again, I concur. Just as with patents copyright allows me to have an advantage in a marketplace with my ideas. A head start. During this time it is implicit that I have the choice to give it away, distribute it myself or barter the rights to someone else, and have legal repercussion on those who would interfere with that.
I also agree that items must fall into the public domain because just like patented inventions, new ideas build upon those of the past. Would we have Indiana Jones if not for Allan Quatermain? The legal precedent for Public Domain was set in the mid-1700s in English court. Up to then when a publisher bought the rights to an author's work it was perpetual. Thankfully, this case changed that because the fledgling USA was quite aware of the need to grant and administer Copyright. I think the original term was 14 years plus 14 more under special circumstance. I believe the Constitution gives Congress the authority to set a Copyright term of finite length. As it is today, 95 years, or life+70 is almost perpetual, at least to those of you who will not live for thousands of years like me- ha ha!
If it was up to me I would reduce the copyright term significantly allowing much of the past to become public domain. Just as filmmakers had a chance to build on the ledgend of Dracula (which was in the public domain) via their numerous interpretations, we should see people building on the creations of the 20th Century.
For instance, I would love to retell "Gone With The Wind," but place it in a more realistic Confederate South. Then, people could view both and engage in debate about each version. As it is, those characters and incidents are not becoming public domain any time soon, even though everyone involved in the original publishing of the book and the creation of the film are dead.
I know a number of science fiction/horror writers felt that sharing characters and events were important to building literature. HP Lovecraft, Burroughs and a bunch of other contemporaries would have their character pop up in the other's authors stories, or even create a new story in the other's literary world. Some wonderful things came because of that.
Anyone could publish and sell a thousand copies of "Lord of the Rings". Competition would drive prices down to the cost of production.
Yes, but does this guarantee the autor compensation for his work? For how long? BTW: Tor books found a loophole in the Copyright laws of England in the 60s and published their own edition of Lord Of The Rings in America
I'm so glad that you understand the concept of fair use so incredibly well.
Evidently, you don't. Fair Use does let you make copies of your media for backup. Also, labels realize you make jam discs or give copies to one or two friends. Big deal. But using Kazaa or similar services is releasing the material to millions of potential downloaders. Mass distribution = PIRACY
The reason the industry wants to put copy protection on media is not to stop you from making personal backups or giving it to one or two friends, but because so many feel it is their right to willy nilly distribute the material world wide. It is like if your mom puts a cookie jar on the table and says, "you can have one a day." One night your brother eats them all. Then she takes the jar away because she can't trust him to follow simple rules. Unfortuantly, he ruined the deal for you
Fair Use is a moral right, but does not apply to those with no morals. If you want the right to make copies for yourself, to freely move the material to your MP3 player, then don't defend the pirates! They are runining it for you!
Sales are down now that Napster is no more.
Actually, because of the Napster case more people now than then use P2P services, especially Kazaa. That lawsuit opened many eyes to the potential for FREE music. As for USENET downloading, the amount of people who did that was insignificant. During that time the largest pirates were professionals who duplicated CDs and Cassetts and sold them on the black market. Cops would bust them and jail them. Kazaa, et. al., has made piracy so easy AOL users can do it, and now there are more songs being stolen than the pros used to do.
You are trying to elevate copyright to a level at which it does not belong.
And you are trying to mutate free speech to encompass the wholesale stealing of art. Precedents on Fair Use have been haded down for years specifically defining what is Fair Use and what is not. For instance, you have the right to quote something someone has written, say a book, for your writing as long as proper credit is given. However, you do not have the right to just copy and distribute that book, which is esentially what is happening via P2P. Suddenly, since this is online and new technology we have to throw out all the precedents?
The truth is, you like to get something for free and you fear that you will lose that "right." It is not the right of Fair Use, the courts are upholding that this is not Fair Use. As for trading the CD at the school, come on, it was for charity. I don't mind if someone shares with a friend or makes a jam disc. Big deal. But I have to laugh when Kazaa is equated to sharing with friends. How many of those people do you know? Is a million people around the world your friend.
I happen to think built-in search functionality is a good thing.
Of course. Again this omes down to making it easy to find material, mainly pirated.
It is also no surprise that a recession hits entertainment harder than other industries (who's going to buy a shiney new CD for their kids right after losing their job?).
Actually, spending on entertainment is up. Last year the Movie industry had a record year. DVDs sold off the shelfs. CDs went down??? The reason: DIVX movies, even RIPS from DVDs, do not look as good as DVDs or support multichnel audio and commentry tracks, and they take longer to download. CDs ripped to MP3 sound almost as good as the original and you can get a 1000 down in a night via broadband.
But this is not an economic issue, but a moral one. I write a song, I get the rights to first publishing, the right to distribte the sound recording the way I want to, and the right to profit from public performance via radio and live. I will not give up these rights because of you.
I wish all of you would stop pretending you have some right to tell people how they should do business and admit you enjoy getting something for nothing.
BTW: I meant the right to persue a profit. My mistake. But I believe I have the right to a fair and equitable marketplace to either rise or fail in. The law is the same online as in the real world. Stealing is stealing.
I have a right to copy wether the constitution says so or not too.
Copyright does not mean you cannot make copies, but you cannot do mass distribution. I think you ae confused. Fair Use allows you to be able to make a backup of a CD or DVD. However, companies are forced to try and stop even these uses because so many use these tools in ways outside of Fair Use guidelines. Take Kazaa. I believe you can dub a copy and give it to a friend. Put it on Kazaa and millons can access it. Are they all your friends? Take a VCR, for instance: it is great to record and time shift shows and save TV movies to watch again and again, or to give your friend. However, use a bunch of VCRs to mass duplicate movies and distribute something, that is piracy. Kazaa makes it easy to mass distribute materials and is in clear violation of Fair Use rules.
copyright is granted by congress, and congress can take it away
And Congress has given. I will protect my right to stop you from distributing my content under law.
No one has a right to profit. Oh, and the internet itself is a p2p network.
Symantics. Perhaps I should have said the right to persue profit which is happiness for me. What a nitpicker you are. Anything to win your arugument. As for the internet.... so? I'm talking about specific apps, Kazaa, et. al.
The record industry reported record profits during a slumping economy while Napster was in full swing.
Sales are down over 11% over all. The 12-25 year olds have seen the largest fall. Conincidentally, they are the ones who have grown up with this technology!
Here's an example of honesty: After the Twin Towers incident my company teamed with the United Way to release a benefit single called The Phoenix. We sold it at several High Schools but sales were not as high as we hoped. Turned out many of the students bought it and copied it for friends. The sad part is that 100% of gross went to the United Way (we wrote off the manufacture costs), but many went unsold and I cannot help but blame the kids who grew up with illegal copying.
There is no right to profit from anything, let alone creativity.
Didn't Stalin say this?
merchandising is key. This is where the real money is made. You just need to know about marketing.
I do. The best fight against online piracy is too give the consumer a better product. Remeber LP's with their great artwork? CD packaging suffers from repetition and boredom. The booklets are boring. I believe that you have to put more into the whole package to create increase desire of ownership. That is why DVD movies are selling better than music CDs. A CD is just a collection of a few singles, filler songs and boring packaging. It encourages sharing.
As for using P2P to advertise, I agree. If it works for you, do it. However, for those who do not want to participate we cannot control what is released or not. Worse, we cannot control quality. P2P needs a system to let anyone who does not want their material traded to "opt out."
The problem is that the copyright term has been extended to a virtual infinite length of time.
Agreed. Although I do not agree on 14+14, I like LIFE+50 (could be lower, say Life+25) because I would hate to see what people do to my characters when they become pubic domain!!! But you are right, Copyright is far too long, especially in regards to Corporations (95 years!!!!!!).
You have no moral right to profit from your own creativity.
Are you a communist?
Look, your connection to the internet is like renting an apartment. If you were duplication on CD-R mass copies of CDs and distributing them from the apartment cops would come and bust you. It is th same thing. You have a virtual address being used for illegal, anonymous transfer of someone elses material. Same deal as finding you in real life, just applied to the web, and not a moment too soon.
Finally, artists and labels (both big and small or independent) have some teeth to get you!
Then I'm sure you're aware, that for every one like you that makes it - there are litterally thousands who copyrights haven't helped a bit, even restricted. Respect of copyrights has never earned it's support, and part of the problem is that copyrights cause alot of information to be valued by how much attention they get and not by how usefull or valuable it really is.
Actually, anyone at any level who is a writer, songwriter, etc., needs to Copyright their work with the Library of Congree to protect themselves from intellectual theft. It is inexpensive and neccessary.
"Just because someone told you that you have a right to restrict others ability to copy, does not mean that you do. Incentive does not a right make."
The US Constitution says I have that right. The same Constitution you are arguing from but ingnoring relevant passages.
Well, don't break the law and pirate artists work and it seems to me you shouldn't have any problem. No one is corrupt except the thieves who, rather than acknowledging their wrongs, instead justify it with spurious arguments.
>copying things is a moral right, like
>freedom of speech, that exists above government.
So you are saying that creative works (books, music, movies, games, etc.) are fair game to copy because of free speech. The constitution guarantees anyone the right to profit from their creative works for a limited time to protect against illegal copying of works. Copyright is the right of the materials creator to designate who can copy and distribute a certain work.
Better question: where is the moral right to profit from my own creativity???
I am a filmmaker and my partner is a music producer. Not major label, but I'll tell you,we make a living creating material that people like to see and hear. P2P is going to kill us. It is not only the Corps who need these abilities to protect themselves from pirates like you, and so steal my work and I will use these and any other tools to protect my work.
>Internet service providers (including universities) >might add a flat monthly surcharge to the fees >they charge for Internet access. Suppose I don't download music at all. Why do I have to pay the fee? Because I might do it? Also, If someone downloads 100s per month, shouldn't he pay more than someone who downloads 10?
Great! It looks like Win 2000! Whoopee!
This is the problem wit the open source movement. All that is ever done is copy copy copy. Forget making it look like Win 2000... make it better and easier to use. And make apps that are better than those on Windows. An example of failure: GIMP is a knockoff one or two steps behind Photoshop. Make it better than Photoshop and I will use it. Make an operating system easier than Windows and get me software, lots of it, and I am there.
But hen again, until Photshop, Quark Xpress and After Effects are available for Linux there is nop chance of my conversion.
Later.
I'm buying XBox Live! When I get it, if it comes down to the choice of whether to buy a title from one company or another, say an NHL game in EA's case, I'll buy the one with Xbox Live capability.
See, supporting Xbox Live is about making me, the consumer, happy by having an easy to use, secure system. You don't support it, well, F*CK YOU, I'll buy a competitors game. Cut yourself out of my choice list