Heh, I knew somebody would point out that there's math involved in RNGs! I guess I should have said that there's no math of the checksum variety in the codes!
With statistical analysis of a large enough sample set, one could discern how the RNG works and most likely figure out which RNG was used (an easy guess is whatever RNG is included in the libraries of whatever variety of OS ships on those XServes). The promotion ends tomorrow, so that will be an impressive feat!
"I don't know why they bother trying to up the security. There is no way to secure media content that is compatible with mass distribution."
It's the "a little goes a long way" paradigm. There's not a car lock that will stop a sophisticated thief who wants your car, but it stops 90% of the punters. Same with locks on doors and copy protection on computer games and gaming consoles. There are likely professional car thieves who also wonder out loud why the car manufacturers don't just give up because it's a losing battle, etc., but it's not going to happen, either.
"They need to work on their business model, because this piecemeal anti-cracking stuff is a joke."
Apple has sold 70 million songs in their first year, and the iTMS is the most wildly successful of any of the legitimate download services, by a wide margin. I think their business model suits them just fine. Remember, Slashdot readers != the general populace. The little annoyances of playing cat-and-mouse with the "all music must be free" crowd is just one part of doing business and is similar to the fraud and theft issues that many other retailers deal with.
In case it wasn't clear, there's no math involved in the codes. They were randomly generated at the start of the promotion and stored in a 100 million row SQL table.
"But really, I don't think this will last. Wait until these pricks at the RIAA get whiff of this, then it's over. As long as they aren't making every single penny they absolutely can, you will be subject to fines, and prosecution."
If you're a band that's signed with a record company, your record company typically has little to do with the concert (other than helping promote you to the point that you get the momentum necessary to support concerts). Remember, the record company shares the copyright on your recording, but the words and music remain yours. Allow your fans to tape... don't allow your fans to tape... if you're singing words you wrote and playing music you wrote, you can do whatever you like.
"I'm sorry, but realistically, i'm going to have to teach my children not to DOWNLOAD ANYTHING. To put blinders on them, and have them be led around by a bunch of jesus loving conglomerate assholes."
Take your own blinders off, first. Understanding your rights under the law isn't that hard.
Here is an EFF page on fair use guidelines for music. Google on "fair use music" to find lots more.
Your second question is tricky, and raises a subject which causes a lot of discussion. Yes, you may generally transform media you own, such as making a cassette copy of a CD to play in your car, or converting from one digital format to another to support an operating system that only supports one but not the other. But if the copyright holder has put digital copy protection on the work and making a copy would require you to break the DMCA, then fair use doctrine does not allow you to ignore the DMCA.
That's an important distinction to understand. To use another example, converting an analog cassette to a DAT is covered by fair use doctrine, but if your friend owns a DAT player and doesn't let you use it, he is not "violating your fair use rights," as many Slashdotters like to put it. Nor would breaking into his house to use his equipment and "exert your fair use rights" give you protection under fair use doctrine, as you've broken a law in the process.
Not technically. There is no "recording live performances is illegal" rule.
It is illegal to make a recording of a performance without the performer's consent. At most concerts, attendees do not have that consent. As somebody else has pointed out, many jam bands do give permission, and you may tape away.
Compare this to "sharing" music. There is no blanket law that says "you are not allowed to give away copies of an MP3" -- but there is one that states that you can't make a copy of somebody else's copyrighted work without consent. You do not have this permission with most commercial CDs, but there are some bands that actively do give away their recordings for free on MP3 and encourage others to do the same.
Lots of Slashdotters misunderstand this. When copying copyrighted material, there's much debate over what's illegal and what's not, when it usually comes down to the copyright holder's whims. That's one of the benefits of copyright -- you, the copyright holder, generally get to say what people can and can't do with your work.
"You're not doing anything "illegal" by downloading, meaning you're not breaking a law. You're infringing on copyright."
The suits are aimed at sharers, those who provide the copyrighted material, not downloaders. While those sharers probably downloaded much of the stuff they're sharing, it's the sharing that's the clear no-no.
The legality of downloading aside, if you are "infringing on copyright" you are indeed breaking the law -- copyright law, in this case. Copyright infringement has both civil and criminal flavors.
Excellent post. That is one of the points that lawyers for the original Napster tried to make. The 9th circuit court smacked them around with the clue stick. Here's an good summary. Snip:
In this instance, however, the Court found that there was no such transformative use since the original works (songs and recordings) were merely copied in whole and thus the new work merely replaced the old, citing cases involving the mere retransmission of a copyrighted broadcast or creating an MP3 format from an audio CD).
One concept familiar to members of the legal profession but not to many lay people is the "laugh test." "I'm not pirating this music, I'm transforming it" may sound good to a lay person but would not likely pass the laugh test in court.
"Well, I do believe in copying CD's. If they're gonna charge me 19.99 for a crappy album that I couldn't listen to beforehand and is 80% filler to buttress the radio hits, if they're gonna charge me $19.99 in spite of the multiple price-fixing they've been found guilty of, then, when I actually like the CD then yeah, I am gonna copy it for my friends."
The average price of a new release is down to $13.42. Plenty of stores allow you to listen to tracks before you buy them, as do Amazon.com and iTunes to a limited extent. Frankly, if you're shopping at stores that charge you $19.99 and don't let you listen to it, it's up to you as a consumer to shop at better stores.
I'm not sure what you mean about "multiple price-fixing." Are you exaggerating to make a point? There was a case settled this year where a few labels were giving Tower Records and TWE co-op money to run ads if they advertised at a minimum price (known as MAPs in the industry); this was done to help defend Tower against Best Buy and Wal-Mart, who were (and still are) selling CDs at sub-standard margins and putting higher-quality record stores out of business (Tower later filed for bankrupcty).
"I believe that copying someone elses music that I paid for in a store, and redistributing a lossy MP3-compressed version of it to my 1,000,000 aquaintances on the internet is sharing. Music is made for sharing so that more people can buy it if they like it. Not only is it my right under "fair use", it's beneficial for the artists."
Can you please clarify how redistributing somebody else's copyrighted work to up to 1,000,000 people falls under fair use doctrine? Here's an EFF primer on fair use.
"Anyting I've downloaded that I haven't eventually bought I've erased."
Well, then, you are certainly the exception. Most people I know who use Kazaa do so to build their music collection and to avoid paying for music.
A serious question for you: we are all aware that some artists use P2P as a promotional mechanism. Many of these are unsigned artists, but some of them are signed artists who have contracts with open-license record companies like Magnatunes, or release live tracks or other tracks via P2P that aren't on their CDs. However, many artists do not support P2P. Do you think this latter group is misguided? If so, do you think it's appropriate to make this choice for them -- that is, to make unauthorized copies of their work even though they would not want you to? In short -- are there some people to whom the Golden Rule should not be applied?
"Copyright law goes into a great deal of detail however, it goes into a great deal of detail in what exactly the copyright holder may restrict (in an unfortunately vague way). Meaning it defines classes of things the copyright holder may restrict. If the condition, restriction, etc is not in one of those classes, the copyright holder DOES NOT have the right to restrict it."
You're correct of course. I was careful to use words like "typically" and "generally" as I did not think such detail was necessary.
Although copyright law is indeed vague on these things, controlling the publishing and performance rights means that practically speaking, you can restrict performances in all the ways I've described. For example, to get permission to perform many plays, one must write to Samuel French for permission, and they may deny permission on such grounds as whether it's been done recently in your area, and what sort of group you are (ie. a neo-Nazi group might be denied the right to perform Anne Frank). In the latter case, said group might challenge that in court (I'm not sure offhand if this is one of the vagaries to which you refer), but until that happens, it's one of those tree-falls-in-the-forest things.
"Oh yeah, and then there's the special effects, which for many movies is a significant investment of money."
Special effects are produced by lots of folks who don't make a huge amount of money. Whether they're the artists with the Wacom tablet or the IT guys who run the server farms or the pyrotechnicians, if special effect budgets are reduced, those people lose out. A $20 million special effects budget is not an amorphous mass of cash. It is salaries.
"And then there is the marketing budget, which is also eats up a lot of the budget."
Marketing money also eventually goes toward somebody's salary.
"By the time you add that all up, the behind the scenes people really don't get a significant chunck of the budget."
The long and short of it is that "behind the scenes" encompasses a lot of people. When one thinks of it in terms of big numbers -- ten million here, twenty million there -- it's easy to forget that most of a film's budget goes to a behind-the-scenes person's salary. Even special effects and marketing!
"And the stuntman/anti-piracy advocate is going to get paid, whether he lives in Vancouver or Hollywood. It's the big studio hotshots that are feeling the pinch, not the stuntman."
Unless budget cuts reduce the number of stunts in a film, thus reducing the need to hire as many stuntpeople. You are correct that less money being spent on films is not a problem for those who still manage to have jobs, but the focus of the spots is those people who won't find work if there's less money to go around.
But you do raise an interesting point. Moving movie production jobs to Vancouver appears to be perfectly okay with most Slashdotters, while offshoring IT and programming is a big problem for many of them. It's easy to take the thousand-mile view as long as it's not your own livelihood at stake.
A good way to avoid being sued by the RIAA is to not dump 1,000 copyrighted songs into your Kazaa share directory. A good rule of thumb is "if you are not sure if you have the right to redistribute something, don't."
"However how do I know what restrictions the copyright holder has placed on this work? I think I have to assume the worst."
At professional playhouses, this is covered by signage in the lobby, a note in the program, an/or via an announcement over the PA. There's a similar situation for concerts.
"However I'm gonna tape it anyways, and I think any other parent would agree with me."
Very astute. While this is an interesting discussion topic, in the real world, nobody's going to bust you for taping your kid's performance, even if you've violating some law. Tape away.
A similar situation exists regarding, say, making a copy of a CD and giving it to your friend so that he doesn't have to buy his own copy. Legal? No. Fair use? No. But will anybody really care? No!
You are 100% correct: if piracy continues to rise, film companies will adapt. They won't simply crawl into a hole and die. But, they will adapt in ways that will be bad news for a lot of working guys in the business.
"If for any reason whatsoever movies become less profitable, the production companies can always cut expenses by reducing pay, reducing headcount, moving offshore, etc. That's true for any business."
Also very wisely put. You wrote in your initial post:
"The guy on screen was most likely paid up front for his work, he's not getting a percentage of the box office take, so "piracy" doesn't affect him."
If the industry's reaction to piracy is to reduce pay, reduce headcount, and move offshore, as you have pointed out, then piracy will affect that guy on screen.
I think you put it very astutely when you remarked that the market forces that affect the film industry are "true for any business." When a business hurts, it's the guys on the bottom that get hurt first. The explosion in film piracy is a market force. I believe that this is the point that the MPAA spots are trying to make.
"I'm assuming that the school purchased a license or has some sort of comprehensive license to put on plays based on copywritten material."
There are compulsory licensing systems in the US for music (which allows, say, bars the right to have a jukebox or host bands that play cover tunes) but there is no equivalent that I know of for dramatic works.
Typically, to do a public performance of a play, one must get permission from the publisher. Samuel French is one of the biggies. You a fee based on whether you're a community theatre, a school, a professional theatre, and so on.
Your kid's school was likely required to get permission from the publisher -- if they adapted the play from the book themselves, then from the book publisher; if there's already an adaptation, then from the publisher of the script.
"So the question is: Can I videotape my son's perfomance?"
Ultimately up to the publisher to decide. In the professional theatres it's strictly not allowed. When I directed a Neil Simon play at a community theatre the rule was that I was allowed to videotape it and give copies to the cast members, but I was not allowed to sell it.
"I asked my Senator (Patrick Leahy) this, since he's a big DMCA booster (but is good in most other ways)."
You've actually shone light on a fundamental misunderstanding that lots of Slashdotters have: this isn't up to Senator Leahy or even copyright law to tell you, but the copyright holder. You see, when you own the copyright on something, you typically have the right to say how people use it. If you write a book, you can freely authorize people to perform it publicly. You can authorize it to be performed only for groups up of up to fifty people, or only more than 50,000 people. You can require that it be performed only in that African language with the clicking sound, or only if the readers stand on their heads -- whatever you like. Copyright law generally doesn't go into this detail -- they keep it simple by generally letting the rightsholder choose how others may use their copyrighted work.
"Actually, part of getting the protections that copyright offers legally means ensuring the rights of valid, legal use. I want the protections of copyright, then I have to abide by fair use policies."
Interesting, I've never heard that before. Are you referring to US copyright law? Do you have a citation for that?
Does this apply to all media? For example, if I release a game with copy protection or print a leaflet on non-copyable paper, is my copyright invalid?
"The guy on screen was most likely paid up front for his work, he's not getting a percentage of the box office take, so "piracy" doesn't affect him."
A lot of Slashdotters misunderstand this. An analogy might make this a bit more comprehensible:
Say you run a game studio. You have a pretty good track record of releasing games that a profitable. You have a staff of, say, twelve programmers, designers, etc. and you produce some kick-ass games that have lots of cool features and really show the efforts of those twelve people.
Then, for whatever reason, the piracy rate of your latest games goes from a tolerably low level to the point that it's noticably eating into your sales. Your profits aren't the same as what they once were, or perhaps you're losing money.
At this point you might say "fuck it, I'm not going to spend so much time and money on these games if people don't think they're worth buying. I've got to cut costs somewhere." You then lay off half of your development staff.
This massively sucks for the development staff, despite the fact that -- just like the gaffer or set painter or whomever it is in those ads -- they are salaried.
Likewise, if film profitability drops due to piracy being a much larger factor than it has been in the past, the studios will look for ways to cut costs. Perhaps they'll consider moving more productions to Canada or other countries where labor is cheaper. Or perhaps they'll try to make do with eight set painters instead of ten. In both these cases, jobs are lost. It's important to understand that a significant chunk of the budget of your typical film goes to the salaries of the behind-the-scenes folks. If fewer films are made, or budgets are slashed, or film production moves offshore, there is less work available for these people. The film industry, just like the computer game and IT indutries and so many others, is one in which there are more talented individuals out there than there are available jobs.
Napster 1.0 tried this very same argument, and the 9th Circuit Court helpfully cleared that up for them. This article sums up the Napster argument, and the subsequent beating with the legal clue stick.
Of course, folks will continue to defend piracy under a misguided understanding of the concept of "fair use," but as another person put it, all this does is eat away at our real fair use rights.
"This whole limit of computers is kind of redundant if they let you burn audio cd's. Aren't most people burning an audio cd, and then ripping to MP3 from there?"
You'd think so, but given the steady hum of "DRM is a cancer on society" and "artists' rights are the wrong of the world" posts, it's not enough for many Slashdotters.
Those posts are cool because they let people elevate piracy from simply getting songs for free, to some sort of social protest on the order of the Montgomery freedom march. I say: if you want to pirate, just rip 'em to MP3, put 'em in your Kazaa share directory, and shut up about it -- or, better yet, go find a real social cause to work for.
"Okay, wouldn't the easiest way to take one down be a much smaller ballon with a small explosive payload? Some kind of optical guidance and a little motor to seek the target would finish the job."
Perhaps, and that might be a fun science experiment if you were so inclined. If your goal is to efficiently disrupt communications, you can just put those same explosives at the bases of enough cell phone towers and you can dispense with the optical guidance and the bijou motor.
"Of course it doesn't cover all aspects of copyright law. They seem to have forgotten about section 107 (fair use)."
The jist of the material seems to be "don't download copyrighted movies." Can you think of some examples where downloading a copyrighted movie would fall under fair use doctrine?
"Because there is this thing called Fair Use the media mobsters are hell-bent on demolishing."
Google on "fair use music" to learn more about how fair use doctrine applies to music. Here's an EFF page.
"You can tape shows off the air and swap them with your friends."
In reality you can do this and not worry about being caught -- and, if caught, not being prosecuted -- but "giving tapes to your friends" is not typically an example of fair use.
"Piracy, on the other hand, isn't terribly accurate. Piracy's has multiple definitions [reference.com] and those different definitions are governed by different laws and punishments."
Pirate and piracy are homonyms (or, depending on whom you listen to, homographs). Other examples of homonyms/homographs are "bank", "set", "polish", "desert", "row", and "bow."
Is it that Slashdotters are gramatically challenged and have some sort of difficulty with the English language not possessed by normal folk? I don't think so; most Slashdotters are pretty smart and the writing quality in comments is generally excellent.
Is it that the definition of "piracy" at hand is a new one, foisted upon the public by those evil copyright holders? No; it's been in common use by pirates and non-pirates alike to refer to software piracy since the 1970's, and is origins extend about a century back (it was originally coined to refer to the illegal copying of maps).
My best guess is that the "piracy shouldn't be referred to as such" linguistical movement on Slashdot is largely driven by folks who don't consider themselves to have the same psychographics as the 12-year-old warez kiddies, yet who still see nothing wrong with helping themselves to all the MP3s they can "share." They're searching for a more clinical term which also has the cathartic effect of being a euphemism, similar to how many alcoholics prefer the word "dependency."
Nonetheless, whether you (and I mean the general you, not the reader in particular) call yourself an "alcoholic" or a "dependent," it makes no difference to your liver or to your loved ones. Likewise, if you and a thousand other people help yourself to a CD via Kazaa to save the trouble and expense of buying it, and the artist could have used that money to pay their rent and would really prefer that you not pirate their work, it makes no difference to them if you call yourself a "pirate" or a "downloader." They're still likely to call you an "asshole," and it all makes no difference to their landlord.
So, let's all pick the word that makes us feel good, while we download away. Me, I have no problem with the word "pirate." As you've pointed out, it's in the dictionary.
"So there is no connection between GPL and warez and trying to suggest that GPL advocates would be upset over a GPL violation and not a proprietary software violation is just silly. I don't know where people come up with the idea that GPL/OSS advocates are supporters of warez. In fact, it is the complete opposite."
You are of course correct that warez are not necessary with OSS, but of course that's a straw man. The comparison is between unauthorized use of OSS/GPL software vs. the unauthorized use of closed source software. Partake in the former? Slashdot consensus is that you're evil. In the latter? A-OK!
Stick around here long enough, and you'll see that whenever there's an issue that might affect a typical Slashdot contributor -- unauthorized copying of a web site, or using GPL code in a closed commercial app -- and it's lynchin' time. But when the content is something that is not likely to have been produced by a typical Slashdot contributor, such as music or a film, and the act of said copying and distribution is sanctified. Some content creators are more equal than others, I suppose.
Is it the same people who play both sides of the fence? Maybe, maybe not. But the general Slashdot consensus is predictable.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, I knew somebody would point out that there's math involved in RNGs! I guess I should have said that there's no math of the checksum variety in the codes!
With statistical analysis of a large enough sample set, one could discern how the RNG works and most likely figure out which RNG was used (an easy guess is whatever RNG is included in the libraries of whatever variety of OS ships on those XServes). The promotion ends tomorrow, so that will be an impressive feat!
"I don't know why they bother trying to up the security. There is no way to secure media content that is compatible with mass distribution."
It's the "a little goes a long way" paradigm. There's not a car lock that will stop a sophisticated thief who wants your car, but it stops 90% of the punters. Same with locks on doors and copy protection on computer games and gaming consoles. There are likely professional car thieves who also wonder out loud why the car manufacturers don't just give up because it's a losing battle, etc., but it's not going to happen, either.
"They need to work on their business model, because this piecemeal anti-cracking stuff is a joke."
Apple has sold 70 million songs in their first year, and the iTMS is the most wildly successful of any of the legitimate download services, by a wide margin. I think their business model suits them just fine. Remember, Slashdot readers != the general populace. The little annoyances of playing cat-and-mouse with the "all music must be free" crowd is just one part of doing business and is similar to the fraud and theft issues that many other retailers deal with.
In case it wasn't clear, there's no math involved in the codes. They were randomly generated at the start of the promotion and stored in a 100 million row SQL table.
"But really, I don't think this will last. Wait until these pricks at the RIAA get whiff of this, then it's over. As long as they aren't making every single penny they absolutely can, you will be subject to fines, and prosecution."
If you're a band that's signed with a record company, your record company typically has little to do with the concert (other than helping promote you to the point that you get the momentum necessary to support concerts). Remember, the record company shares the copyright on your recording, but the words and music remain yours. Allow your fans to tape... don't allow your fans to tape... if you're singing words you wrote and playing music you wrote, you can do whatever you like.
"I'm sorry, but realistically, i'm going to have to teach my children not to DOWNLOAD ANYTHING. To put blinders on them, and have them be led around by a bunch of jesus loving conglomerate assholes."
Take your own blinders off, first. Understanding your rights under the law isn't that hard.
Here is an EFF page on fair use guidelines for music. Google on "fair use music" to find lots more.
Your second question is tricky, and raises a subject which causes a lot of discussion. Yes, you may generally transform media you own, such as making a cassette copy of a CD to play in your car, or converting from one digital format to another to support an operating system that only supports one but not the other. But if the copyright holder has put digital copy protection on the work and making a copy would require you to break the DMCA, then fair use doctrine does not allow you to ignore the DMCA.
That's an important distinction to understand. To use another example, converting an analog cassette to a DAT is covered by fair use doctrine, but if your friend owns a DAT player and doesn't let you use it, he is not "violating your fair use rights," as many Slashdotters like to put it. Nor would breaking into his house to use his equipment and "exert your fair use rights" give you protection under fair use doctrine, as you've broken a law in the process.
Not technically. There is no "recording live performances is illegal" rule.
It is illegal to make a recording of a performance without the performer's consent. At most concerts, attendees do not have that consent. As somebody else has pointed out, many jam bands do give permission, and you may tape away.
Compare this to "sharing" music. There is no blanket law that says "you are not allowed to give away copies of an MP3" -- but there is one that states that you can't make a copy of somebody else's copyrighted work without consent. You do not have this permission with most commercial CDs, but there are some bands that actively do give away their recordings for free on MP3 and encourage others to do the same.
Lots of Slashdotters misunderstand this. When copying copyrighted material, there's much debate over what's illegal and what's not, when it usually comes down to the copyright holder's whims. That's one of the benefits of copyright -- you, the copyright holder, generally get to say what people can and can't do with your work.
"You're not doing anything "illegal" by downloading, meaning you're not breaking a law. You're infringing on copyright."
The suits are aimed at sharers, those who provide the copyrighted material, not downloaders. While those sharers probably downloaded much of the stuff they're sharing, it's the sharing that's the clear no-no.
The legality of downloading aside, if you are "infringing on copyright" you are indeed breaking the law -- copyright law, in this case. Copyright infringement has both civil and criminal flavors.
Excellent post. That is one of the points that lawyers for the original Napster tried to make. The 9th circuit court smacked them around with the clue stick. Here's an good summary. Snip:
In this instance, however, the Court found that there was no such transformative use since the original works (songs and recordings) were merely copied in whole and thus the new work merely replaced the old, citing cases involving the mere retransmission of a copyrighted broadcast or creating an MP3 format from an audio CD).
One concept familiar to members of the legal profession but not to many lay people is the "laugh test." "I'm not pirating this music, I'm transforming it" may sound good to a lay person but would not likely pass the laugh test in court.
"Well, I do believe in copying CD's. If they're gonna charge me 19.99 for a crappy album that I couldn't listen to beforehand and is 80% filler to buttress the radio hits, if they're gonna charge me $19.99 in spite of the multiple price-fixing they've been found guilty of, then, when I actually like the CD then yeah, I am gonna copy it for my friends."
The average price of a new release is down to $13.42. Plenty of stores allow you to listen to tracks before you buy them, as do Amazon.com and iTunes to a limited extent. Frankly, if you're shopping at stores that charge you $19.99 and don't let you listen to it, it's up to you as a consumer to shop at better stores.
I'm not sure what you mean about "multiple price-fixing." Are you exaggerating to make a point? There was a case settled this year where a few labels were giving Tower Records and TWE co-op money to run ads if they advertised at a minimum price (known as MAPs in the industry); this was done to help defend Tower against Best Buy and Wal-Mart, who were (and still are) selling CDs at sub-standard margins and putting higher-quality record stores out of business (Tower later filed for bankrupcty).
"I believe that copying someone elses music that I paid for in a store, and redistributing a lossy MP3-compressed version of it to my 1,000,000 aquaintances on the internet is sharing. Music is made for sharing so that more people can buy it if they like it. Not only is it my right under "fair use", it's beneficial for the artists."
Can you please clarify how redistributing somebody else's copyrighted work to up to 1,000,000 people falls under fair use doctrine? Here's an EFF primer on fair use.
"Anyting I've downloaded that I haven't eventually bought I've erased."
Well, then, you are certainly the exception. Most people I know who use Kazaa do so to build their music collection and to avoid paying for music.
A serious question for you: we are all aware that some artists use P2P as a promotional mechanism. Many of these are unsigned artists, but some of them are signed artists who have contracts with open-license record companies like Magnatunes, or release live tracks or other tracks via P2P that aren't on their CDs. However, many artists do not support P2P. Do you think this latter group is misguided? If so, do you think it's appropriate to make this choice for them -- that is, to make unauthorized copies of their work even though they would not want you to? In short -- are there some people to whom the Golden Rule should not be applied?
"Copyright law goes into a great deal of detail however, it goes into a great deal of detail in what exactly the copyright holder may restrict (in an unfortunately vague way). Meaning it defines classes of things the copyright holder may restrict. If the condition, restriction, etc is not in one of those classes, the copyright holder DOES NOT have the right to restrict it."
You're correct of course. I was careful to use words like "typically" and "generally" as I did not think such detail was necessary.
Although copyright law is indeed vague on these things, controlling the publishing and performance rights means that practically speaking, you can restrict performances in all the ways I've described. For example, to get permission to perform many plays, one must write to Samuel French for permission, and they may deny permission on such grounds as whether it's been done recently in your area, and what sort of group you are (ie. a neo-Nazi group might be denied the right to perform Anne Frank). In the latter case, said group might challenge that in court (I'm not sure offhand if this is one of the vagaries to which you refer), but until that happens, it's one of those tree-falls-in-the-forest things.
"Oh yeah, and then there's the special effects, which for many movies is a significant investment of money."
Special effects are produced by lots of folks who don't make a huge amount of money. Whether they're the artists with the Wacom tablet or the IT guys who run the server farms or the pyrotechnicians, if special effect budgets are reduced, those people lose out. A $20 million special effects budget is not an amorphous mass of cash. It is salaries.
"And then there is the marketing budget, which is also eats up a lot of the budget."
Marketing money also eventually goes toward somebody's salary.
"By the time you add that all up, the behind the scenes people really don't get a significant chunck of the budget."
The long and short of it is that "behind the scenes" encompasses a lot of people. When one thinks of it in terms of big numbers -- ten million here, twenty million there -- it's easy to forget that most of a film's budget goes to a behind-the-scenes person's salary. Even special effects and marketing!
"And the stuntman/anti-piracy advocate is going to get paid, whether he lives in Vancouver or Hollywood. It's the big studio hotshots that are feeling the pinch, not the stuntman."
Unless budget cuts reduce the number of stunts in a film, thus reducing the need to hire as many stuntpeople. You are correct that less money being spent on films is not a problem for those who still manage to have jobs, but the focus of the spots is those people who won't find work if there's less money to go around.
But you do raise an interesting point. Moving movie production jobs to Vancouver appears to be perfectly okay with most Slashdotters, while offshoring IT and programming is a big problem for many of them. It's easy to take the thousand-mile view as long as it's not your own livelihood at stake.
"Are we supposed to take it that all of those have been settled (supposedly by paying the RIAA)?"
Most have. A few have been dismissed (the most famous is the grandmother who has a Mac). At least one has countersued. But for the most part they've been paying up.
A good way to avoid being sued by the RIAA is to not dump 1,000 copyrighted songs into your Kazaa share directory. A good rule of thumb is "if you are not sure if you have the right to redistribute something, don't."
"However how do I know what restrictions the copyright holder has placed on this work? I think I have to assume the worst."
At professional playhouses, this is covered by signage in the lobby, a note in the program, an/or via an announcement over the PA. There's a similar situation for concerts.
"However I'm gonna tape it anyways, and I think any other parent would agree with me."
Very astute. While this is an interesting discussion topic, in the real world, nobody's going to bust you for taping your kid's performance, even if you've violating some law. Tape away.
A similar situation exists regarding, say, making a copy of a CD and giving it to your friend so that he doesn't have to buy his own copy. Legal? No. Fair use? No. But will anybody really care? No!
You are 100% correct: if piracy continues to rise, film companies will adapt. They won't simply crawl into a hole and die. But, they will adapt in ways that will be bad news for a lot of working guys in the business.
"If for any reason whatsoever movies become less profitable, the production companies can always cut expenses by reducing pay, reducing headcount, moving offshore, etc. That's true for any business."
Also very wisely put. You wrote in your initial post:
"The guy on screen was most likely paid up front for his work, he's not getting a percentage of the box office take, so "piracy" doesn't affect him."
If the industry's reaction to piracy is to reduce pay, reduce headcount, and move offshore, as you have pointed out, then piracy will affect that guy on screen.
I think you put it very astutely when you remarked that the market forces that affect the film industry are "true for any business." When a business hurts, it's the guys on the bottom that get hurt first. The explosion in film piracy is a market force. I believe that this is the point that the MPAA spots are trying to make.
"I'm assuming that the school purchased a license or has some sort of comprehensive license to put on plays based on copywritten material."
There are compulsory licensing systems in the US for music (which allows, say, bars the right to have a jukebox or host bands that play cover tunes) but there is no equivalent that I know of for dramatic works.
Typically, to do a public performance of a play, one must get permission from the publisher. Samuel French is one of the biggies. You a fee based on whether you're a community theatre, a school, a professional theatre, and so on.
Your kid's school was likely required to get permission from the publisher -- if they adapted the play from the book themselves, then from the book publisher; if there's already an adaptation, then from the publisher of the script.
"So the question is: Can I videotape my son's perfomance?"
Ultimately up to the publisher to decide. In the professional theatres it's strictly not allowed. When I directed a Neil Simon play at a community theatre the rule was that I was allowed to videotape it and give copies to the cast members, but I was not allowed to sell it.
"I asked my Senator (Patrick Leahy) this, since he's a big DMCA booster (but is good in most other ways)."
You've actually shone light on a fundamental misunderstanding that lots of Slashdotters have: this isn't up to Senator Leahy or even copyright law to tell you, but the copyright holder. You see, when you own the copyright on something, you typically have the right to say how people use it. If you write a book, you can freely authorize people to perform it publicly. You can authorize it to be performed only for groups up of up to fifty people, or only more than 50,000 people. You can require that it be performed only in that African language with the clicking sound, or only if the readers stand on their heads -- whatever you like. Copyright law generally doesn't go into this detail -- they keep it simple by generally letting the rightsholder choose how others may use their copyrighted work.
"Actually, part of getting the protections that copyright offers legally means ensuring the rights of valid, legal use. I want the protections of copyright, then I have to abide by fair use policies."
Interesting, I've never heard that before. Are you referring to US copyright law? Do you have a citation for that?
Does this apply to all media? For example, if I release a game with copy protection or print a leaflet on non-copyable paper, is my copyright invalid?
"The guy on screen was most likely paid up front for his work, he's not getting a percentage of the box office take, so "piracy" doesn't affect him."
A lot of Slashdotters misunderstand this. An analogy might make this a bit more comprehensible:
Say you run a game studio. You have a pretty good track record of releasing games that a profitable. You have a staff of, say, twelve programmers, designers, etc. and you produce some kick-ass games that have lots of cool features and really show the efforts of those twelve people.
Then, for whatever reason, the piracy rate of your latest games goes from a tolerably low level to the point that it's noticably eating into your sales. Your profits aren't the same as what they once were, or perhaps you're losing money.
At this point you might say "fuck it, I'm not going to spend so much time and money on these games if people don't think they're worth buying. I've got to cut costs somewhere." You then lay off half of your development staff.
This massively sucks for the development staff, despite the fact that -- just like the gaffer or set painter or whomever it is in those ads -- they are salaried.
Likewise, if film profitability drops due to piracy being a much larger factor than it has been in the past, the studios will look for ways to cut costs. Perhaps they'll consider moving more productions to Canada or other countries where labor is cheaper. Or perhaps they'll try to make do with eight set painters instead of ten. In both these cases, jobs are lost. It's important to understand that a significant chunk of the budget of your typical film goes to the salaries of the behind-the-scenes folks. If fewer films are made, or budgets are slashed, or film production moves offshore, there is less work available for these people. The film industry, just like the computer game and IT indutries and so many others, is one in which there are more talented individuals out there than there are available jobs.
Napster 1.0 tried this very same argument, and the 9th Circuit Court helpfully cleared that up for them. This article sums up the Napster argument, and the subsequent beating with the legal clue stick.
Of course, folks will continue to defend piracy under a misguided understanding of the concept of "fair use," but as another person put it, all this does is eat away at our real fair use rights.
Very well put. I would prepend one line to that:
"First they pirated the CDs and DVDs, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a musician or a filmmaker."
"This whole limit of computers is kind of redundant if they let you burn audio cd's. Aren't most people burning an audio cd, and then ripping to MP3 from there?"
You'd think so, but given the steady hum of "DRM is a cancer on society" and "artists' rights are the wrong of the world" posts, it's not enough for many Slashdotters.
Those posts are cool because they let people elevate piracy from simply getting songs for free, to some sort of social protest on the order of the Montgomery freedom march. I say: if you want to pirate, just rip 'em to MP3, put 'em in your Kazaa share directory, and shut up about it -- or, better yet, go find a real social cause to work for.
"Okay, wouldn't the easiest way to take one down be a much smaller ballon with a small explosive payload? Some kind of optical guidance and a little motor to seek the target would finish the job."
Perhaps, and that might be a fun science experiment if you were so inclined. If your goal is to efficiently disrupt communications, you can just put those same explosives at the bases of enough cell phone towers and you can dispense with the optical guidance and the bijou motor.
"Of course it doesn't cover all aspects of copyright law. They seem to have forgotten about section 107 (fair use)."
The jist of the material seems to be "don't download copyrighted movies." Can you think of some examples where downloading a copyrighted movie would fall under fair use doctrine?
"Because there is this thing called Fair Use the media mobsters are hell-bent on demolishing."
Google on "fair use music" to learn more about how fair use doctrine applies to music. Here's an EFF page.
"You can tape shows off the air and swap them with your friends."
In reality you can do this and not worry about being caught -- and, if caught, not being prosecuted -- but "giving tapes to your friends" is not typically an example of fair use.
"Piracy, on the other hand, isn't terribly accurate. Piracy's has multiple definitions [reference.com] and those different definitions are governed by different laws and punishments."
Pirate and piracy are homonyms (or, depending on whom you listen to, homographs). Other examples of homonyms/homographs are "bank", "set", "polish", "desert", "row", and "bow."
Is it that Slashdotters are gramatically challenged and have some sort of difficulty with the English language not possessed by normal folk? I don't think so; most Slashdotters are pretty smart and the writing quality in comments is generally excellent.
Is it that the definition of "piracy" at hand is a new one, foisted upon the public by those evil copyright holders? No; it's been in common use by pirates and non-pirates alike to refer to software piracy since the 1970's, and is origins extend about a century back (it was originally coined to refer to the illegal copying of maps).
My best guess is that the "piracy shouldn't be referred to as such" linguistical movement on Slashdot is largely driven by folks who don't consider themselves to have the same psychographics as the 12-year-old warez kiddies, yet who still see nothing wrong with helping themselves to all the MP3s they can "share." They're searching for a more clinical term which also has the cathartic effect of being a euphemism, similar to how many alcoholics prefer the word "dependency."
Nonetheless, whether you (and I mean the general you, not the reader in particular) call yourself an "alcoholic" or a "dependent," it makes no difference to your liver or to your loved ones. Likewise, if you and a thousand other people help yourself to a CD via Kazaa to save the trouble and expense of buying it, and the artist could have used that money to pay their rent and would really prefer that you not pirate their work, it makes no difference to them if you call yourself a "pirate" or a "downloader." They're still likely to call you an "asshole," and it all makes no difference to their landlord.
So, let's all pick the word that makes us feel good, while we download away. Me, I have no problem with the word "pirate." As you've pointed out, it's in the dictionary.
"So there is no connection between GPL and warez and trying to suggest that GPL advocates would be upset over a GPL violation and not a proprietary software violation is just silly. I don't know where people come up with the idea that GPL/OSS advocates are supporters of warez. In fact, it is the complete opposite."
You are of course correct that warez are not necessary with OSS, but of course that's a straw man. The comparison is between unauthorized use of OSS/GPL software vs. the unauthorized use of closed source software. Partake in the former? Slashdot consensus is that you're evil. In the latter? A-OK!
Stick around here long enough, and you'll see that whenever there's an issue that might affect a typical Slashdot contributor -- unauthorized copying of a web site, or using GPL code in a closed commercial app -- and it's lynchin' time. But when the content is something that is not likely to have been produced by a typical Slashdot contributor, such as music or a film, and the act of said copying and distribution is sanctified. Some content creators are more equal than others, I suppose.
Is it the same people who play both sides of the fence? Maybe, maybe not. But the general Slashdot consensus is predictable.