That's the problem, though. If we stop fighting the DRM, they'll assume they've found one that works and we'll be stuck with it. That means you have to buy a copy on blu-ray for home, then another copy for your iPod, and another copy for the kids to watch in your huge SUV on trips, and yet another copy to play on your portable DVD player, etc...
If they just did away with the DRM and offered it in an open format (I don't mean Theora, I mean any format read/writable by the masses -- MPEG-2 works for this; ignoring patents, h.264 is better), you could buy your blu-ray copy and convert it yourself for your other players.
"But... but, but, wait! That won't work! There's no software out there, usable by the average user that can do that!"
DERP! Guess why that is! BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL! Guess why THAT is! BECAUSE OF DRM!
So, if I can get my hands on a blu-ray disc, movie not released on DVD, no version on iTunes to fit my iPod, I'm breaking the fucking law anyway to get a DVD for the portable player and the SUV, breaking the law to get a copy onto my iPod... Why not just break the law and pirate it to begin with?
The point is, if I'm going to be a criminal whether I spend my money or not, I'm not spending my money. If I can pay a small **IMPORTANT** fee and legally transfer the media to other devices WHICH I OWN, without breaking any laws, THAT is the avenue I'd prefer to take.
That option isn't available to me.
That said, I don't own any of the following: Blu-ray player, portable DVD player, SUV, iAnything.
Really, they should be developing this tech for use with SLC drives. If it can make an MLC perform like an SLC, imagine what it would do for the already-faster-and-longer-lasting SLC drives.
I'm in the same boat; the only media purchases I've made in the last 5 years that WEREN'T the preceded by a download were my fiancee's brother's band's (Voice of Addiction) CDs; and I know I like their music because I've had the opportunity to hear it.
There's a shit-ton of media out there that I'm sure I'd buy if I had a way to preview it; songs that don't get radio play, movies the networks don't air, media nobody I know owns or knows about.
As a thought exercise for anyone who doesn't see my point: Propose as many methods as possible for previewing all of this media prior to purchase, with the following caveat: no piracy. Whoever sells the most media wins.
Oh, I almost forgot... No, it's not OK for you to selectively choose which of my rights you can honor. Then again, where did I say that downloading was OK?
My apologies, I wasn't paying attention and thought this reply was part of a different thread.
I'll now answer to all of your points, in the order in which you made them.
The artist loses nothing when I make a copy. I'd also like to point out that you, yourself, moved the goal post with this one; my comments were broad, you restricted the discussion to movies.
Renting increases demand in the same way as copying; a way from which the artist sees no revenue. Financially, for the studios, they're the same. Again, you've moved the goal post by limiting the discussion to movies. Tell me, where I can rent a copy of Crysis?
Would I watch it OTA to begin with? If I would, then yes, I probably would watch it OTA when it aired, given that it saves me the trouble of finding and opening the file or locating and inserting the DVD I made of it. Again, you've moved the goal post by limiting the discussion to movies. When is CBS going to air Splinter Cell so I can play it?
You missed the boat. If copyrights were respected, we'd do without, period. This includes the (rather substantial) group who insists on trying before buying; you remove their ability to try, you remove their willingness to buy and the artists can simply do without their sales. Wanting to be sure you like something that, for all intents and purposes, can't be returned for a refund, before you plunk down your hard-earned finite resource (cash) is very reasonable.
Further, every one of your points is trivial, by your own account.
You're right, though, it's not JUST about DVD sales. Or movie ticket sales. However, you're the one who made that implication in the first place.
You need to go back and take a look at US copyright law again. Nowhere does it say that a consumer who obtains a copyright protected work is liable for their source; all of the liability is placed on the source. Period.
If I'm wrong (and I may be, but I'll leave it to you to prove it) and you're right (likewise), explain why studios are only suing uploaders. Not one person who ONLY downloaded has been targeted to date, and it's much easier to prove that someone downloaded than it is to prove that they uploaded.
I'm open to being shown that I'm wrong. It's happened many times in the past; it just hasn't happened with regard to this topic in the last 13 years.
Again, I'd like to point out that it is the one distributing the works who is infringing on these rights; that's why the law is written to target distributors, rather than consumers.
With the number of artists releasing their works for free distribution, it's somewhat absurd to expect a consumer to know whether their source is legit or not. However, a distributor knows damn well whether or not their product is legit.
You "copying is theft" types always seem to gloss over that detail.
I've seen many artists, including those signed by major labels, release some (or all) of their work for free download and sharing; it's not too far of a stretch for the average schmoe the believe that their free download source is legit. Again, only the distributor knows for sure; that's why the law targets them and not the average schmoe.
And that's precisely the suit you aim at the distributors who are undermining your copyright.
You can't claim loss of future revenue from someone making a single copy for personal use; it simply isn't logical.
The person making multiple copies and handing them out, on the other hand; well, they're probably costing you.
Mind you, nowhere am I saying that downloading or copying for any purpose is OK, nor am I saying it's not; my thoughts on that matter aren't relevant to the law and the logic behind that law.
It's truly sad that so surprisingly, amazingly, few people understand copyright law and the logic behind it.
If they're being deprived of a sale, then I've stolen the sale, not the copy. Since I don't posses that sale, you'll be hard-pressed to prove it in a court of law.
That said, you can't even claim there was ever a potential sale. If I don't have cash or credit available for the purchase, there is no potential sale; if the media in question is no longer available for sale or is not available for sale in my region, there is no potential sale; if I really and truly do not wish to purchase the media in question, there is no potential sale. Id est, if I'm not going to buy it, I do not represent a potential sale; no amount of copying of media I do not intend to buy can ever count as lost potential sales.
In fact, quite the opposite is true; I never intend to purchase ANY media I have not previously reviewed. Those downloads often become ACTUAL sales where there was previously no potential sale. This has been proven in numerous studies, linked from other comments in this article, vide supra.
If anything, the distributor (uploader), not the copier (downloader), is guilty of stealing potential sales, as they have the power to convert potential paying customers into copiers.
"Ergo" really was enough Latin for me, but you just had to whip out your Q.E.D.
Stolen goods are the result of theft. Copying isn't theft, as it does not deprive the owner of use or availability. Ergo, downloaded copies are not stolen goods.
As the server is currently undergoing a slashdotting, I'd be inclined to advise you to let it load for a bit, then refresh.
On several of the demos, I did notice that the flash would start first, but partway through the demo, flash would freeze for a moment and the javascript ended up taking the lead. This would seem to relfect the opposite of what you're experiencing.
Ahh, but you see, my wife is a finite resource. She can only take on 3 other people before my ability to access her is completely removed; and that ability is hindered as soon as someone else begins making use of her resources.
Digital bits, on the other hand, are an infinite resource. Completely different.
Further, I'm betting you posted, then read the rest of the thread and felt like a complete fucking ass when you realized that the comment to which you replied made no claim that downloading was OK.
On the up side, however, you mistyped your last line; and I couldn't agree more.
If everybody in the world downloaded the film instead of bought it, we could collectively be called thieves, because then the studio wouldn't get any money and wouldn't be able to keep creating films, and they would go away.
Holy Christ. No.
If everybody in the world stole DVD, BLu-Ray, and original film prints instead of buying it, we could collectively be called thieves, because then we have deprived the studio of the use of their property. As an aside, many of us don't give them our money (and many of those don't pirate) simply because we really wouldn't mind if they just went away.
The main benefit to downloading is you don't have to have a car to run to Walmart to use Redbox. I think if everybody had a Redbox within a block of their house they would be a lot more willing to stop downloading. Why? Cause for $1 you get all the newest DVD releases. If it's right where I am to buy groceries, it's not even worth trying to track down a good version on bittorrent and then worrying about being caught or something.
Almost; you've at least made an attempt, here, to rationalize why people download. Congratulations on not being a total douche (like me).
The main benefit to downloading is that you don't have to violate a criminal law to transcode the media into whatever format you want. I think if everybody could transcode their DVDs and Blu-Rays into formats playable on their portable player of choice without having to use specialized software to bypass ridiculous restrictions, they would be a lot more willing to stop downloading. Why? Because, for $0, they can currently do just that. If I can skip the previews for movies I've already seen and don't get accused of being a thief after I've paid for something, it's not even worth trying to track down a good version on BitTorrent and then worrying about being sued civilly for distribution.
God I'm on a roll burning karma with you people today. Good thing I have plenty...
Which brings me to my next point. Karma.
I've spent my time on this site building up my karma; it's Excellent. I worked hard for that. I put a lot of effort into doing the right thing during my time here; and I'm still doing that. I do the same in life, as well. That effort, that hard work, all that doing the right thing... know what all that does?
It entitles me to a few oopses every now and then, complete with forgiveness.
The MPAA and RIAA have done precisely the opposite. They've burned so mach karma the never had to begin with. In Slashdot terms, they have the most negative karma possible, and they've spent years getting it there.
They made an oops with digital distribution and it will not be forgiven.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the problem, though. If we stop fighting the DRM, they'll assume they've found one that works and we'll be stuck with it. That means you have to buy a copy on blu-ray for home, then another copy for your iPod, and another copy for the kids to watch in your huge SUV on trips, and yet another copy to play on your portable DVD player, etc...
If they just did away with the DRM and offered it in an open format (I don't mean Theora, I mean any format read/writable by the masses -- MPEG-2 works for this; ignoring patents, h.264 is better), you could buy your blu-ray copy and convert it yourself for your other players.
"But... but, but, wait! That won't work! There's no software out there, usable by the average user that can do that!"
DERP! Guess why that is! BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL! Guess why THAT is! BECAUSE OF DRM!
So, if I can get my hands on a blu-ray disc, movie not released on DVD, no version on iTunes to fit my iPod, I'm breaking the fucking law anyway to get a DVD for the portable player and the SUV, breaking the law to get a copy onto my iPod... Why not just break the law and pirate it to begin with?
The point is, if I'm going to be a criminal whether I spend my money or not, I'm not spending my money. If I can pay a small **IMPORTANT** fee and legally transfer the media to other devices WHICH I OWN, without breaking any laws, THAT is the avenue I'd prefer to take.
That option isn't available to me.
That said, I don't own any of the following: Blu-ray player, portable DVD player, SUV, iAnything.
Mod +1, Ironic
This thread is now about the governor of Canada saying funny $#*!.
Not a troll... An Apple customer.
Really, they should be developing this tech for use with SLC drives. If it can make an MLC perform like an SLC, imagine what it would do for the already-faster-and-longer-lasting SLC drives.
So you're trying to tell me that McAfee has their marketing department send out emails, but doesn't have them make decision about branding?
Tell me, just why do you think McAfee chose red as their "goddamned branding color"?
screw MY comment... someone mot THIS guy up!
I thought naming your product after your company was a Kno Kno
Another one on the good list. Thanks for that.
I'm in the same boat; the only media purchases I've made in the last 5 years that WEREN'T the preceded by a download were my fiancee's brother's band's (Voice of Addiction) CDs; and I know I like their music because I've had the opportunity to hear it.
There's a shit-ton of media out there that I'm sure I'd buy if I had a way to preview it; songs that don't get radio play, movies the networks don't air, media nobody I know owns or knows about.
As a thought exercise for anyone who doesn't see my point: Propose as many methods as possible for previewing all of this media prior to purchase, with the following caveat: no piracy. Whoever sells the most media wins.
Oh, I almost forgot... No, it's not OK for you to selectively choose which of my rights you can honor. Then again, where did I say that downloading was OK?
My apologies, I wasn't paying attention and thought this reply was part of a different thread.
I'll now answer to all of your points, in the order in which you made them.
The artist loses nothing when I make a copy. I'd also like to point out that you, yourself, moved the goal post with this one; my comments were broad, you restricted the discussion to movies.
Renting increases demand in the same way as copying; a way from which the artist sees no revenue. Financially, for the studios, they're the same. Again, you've moved the goal post by limiting the discussion to movies. Tell me, where I can rent a copy of Crysis?
Would I watch it OTA to begin with? If I would, then yes, I probably would watch it OTA when it aired, given that it saves me the trouble of finding and opening the file or locating and inserting the DVD I made of it. Again, you've moved the goal post by limiting the discussion to movies. When is CBS going to air Splinter Cell so I can play it?
You missed the boat. If copyrights were respected, we'd do without, period. This includes the (rather substantial) group who insists on trying before buying; you remove their ability to try, you remove their willingness to buy and the artists can simply do without their sales. Wanting to be sure you like something that, for all intents and purposes, can't be returned for a refund, before you plunk down your hard-earned finite resource (cash) is very reasonable.
Further, every one of your points is trivial, by your own account.
You're right, though, it's not JUST about DVD sales. Or movie ticket sales. However, you're the one who made that implication in the first place.
You need to go back and take a look at US copyright law again. Nowhere does it say that a consumer who obtains a copyright protected work is liable for their source; all of the liability is placed on the source. Period.
If I'm wrong (and I may be, but I'll leave it to you to prove it) and you're right (likewise), explain why studios are only suing uploaders. Not one person who ONLY downloaded has been targeted to date, and it's much easier to prove that someone downloaded than it is to prove that they uploaded.
I'm open to being shown that I'm wrong. It's happened many times in the past; it just hasn't happened with regard to this topic in the last 13 years.
If you don't mind my asking, how many of the movies you pirated in your youth have you now gone back and purchased?
If your answer is nonzero, the copying-is-theft crowd should take notice.
Now, of those, how many were purchased without a second thought, because you had already seen them and knew you liked them?
Again, a nonzero answer should show the copying-is-theft crowd something.
One last question, if you don't mind; of those purchases, how many would NOT have been made had you not previously downloaded and watched them?
Once more, a nonzero answer will to a long way in opening the eyes of the copying-is-theft crowd.
*DISCLAIMER: I'll feel like a real ass if any or all of your answers are 0.
Again, I'd like to point out that it is the one distributing the works who is infringing on these rights; that's why the law is written to target distributors, rather than consumers.
With the number of artists releasing their works for free distribution, it's somewhat absurd to expect a consumer to know whether their source is legit or not. However, a distributor knows damn well whether or not their product is legit.
You "copying is theft" types always seem to gloss over that detail.
I've seen many artists, including those signed by major labels, release some (or all) of their work for free download and sharing; it's not too far of a stretch for the average schmoe the believe that their free download source is legit. Again, only the distributor knows for sure; that's why the law targets them and not the average schmoe.
And that's precisely the suit you aim at the distributors who are undermining your copyright.
You can't claim loss of future revenue from someone making a single copy for personal use; it simply isn't logical.
The person making multiple copies and handing them out, on the other hand; well, they're probably costing you.
Mind you, nowhere am I saying that downloading or copying for any purpose is OK, nor am I saying it's not; my thoughts on that matter aren't relevant to the law and the logic behind that law.
It's truly sad that so surprisingly, amazingly, few people understand copyright law and the logic behind it.
If they're being deprived of a sale, then I've stolen the sale, not the copy. Since I don't posses that sale, you'll be hard-pressed to prove it in a court of law.
That said, you can't even claim there was ever a potential sale. If I don't have cash or credit available for the purchase, there is no potential sale; if the media in question is no longer available for sale or is not available for sale in my region, there is no potential sale; if I really and truly do not wish to purchase the media in question, there is no potential sale. Id est, if I'm not going to buy it, I do not represent a potential sale; no amount of copying of media I do not intend to buy can ever count as lost potential sales.
In fact, quite the opposite is true; I never intend to purchase ANY media I have not previously reviewed. Those downloads often become ACTUAL sales where there was previously no potential sale. This has been proven in numerous studies, linked from other comments in this article, vide supra.
If anything, the distributor (uploader), not the copier (downloader), is guilty of stealing potential sales, as they have the power to convert potential paying customers into copiers.
"Ergo" really was enough Latin for me, but you just had to whip out your Q.E.D.
Stolen goods are the result of theft. Copying isn't theft, as it does not deprive the owner of use or availability. Ergo, downloaded copies are not stolen goods.
As the server is currently undergoing a slashdotting, I'd be inclined to advise you to let it load for a bit, then refresh.
On several of the demos, I did notice that the flash would start first, but partway through the demo, flash would freeze for a moment and the javascript ended up taking the lead. This would seem to relfect the opposite of what you're experiencing.
Wow! Some followup! Nobody ever follows up once they realize they were wrong...
You, sir (or ma'am), are one of the good ones, even if we might not always see eye to eye.
I must apologize for calling you an ass; this thread just had me a little bit more annoyed than I typically like to be.
Driveby WTF-mod. I was going for funny; apparently you haven't seen many movies in the last 5 years?
Ahh, but you see, my wife is a finite resource. She can only take on 3 other people before my ability to access her is completely removed; and that ability is hindered as soon as someone else begins making use of her resources.
Digital bits, on the other hand, are an infinite resource. Completely different.
Further, I'm betting you posted, then read the rest of the thread and felt like a complete fucking ass when you realized that the comment to which you replied made no claim that downloading was OK.
On the up side, however, you mistyped your last line; and I couldn't agree more.
but now I want some White Castle.
If everybody in the world downloaded the film instead of bought it, we could collectively be called thieves, because then the studio wouldn't get any money and wouldn't be able to keep creating films, and they would go away.
Holy Christ. No.
If everybody in the world stole DVD, BLu-Ray, and original film prints instead of buying it, we could collectively be called thieves, because then we have deprived the studio of the use of their property. As an aside, many of us don't give them our money (and many of those don't pirate) simply because we really wouldn't mind if they just went away.
The main benefit to downloading is you don't have to have a car to run to Walmart to use Redbox. I think if everybody had a Redbox within a block of their house they would be a lot more willing to stop downloading. Why? Cause for $1 you get all the newest DVD releases. If it's right where I am to buy groceries, it's not even worth trying to track down a good version on bittorrent and then worrying about being caught or something.
Almost; you've at least made an attempt, here, to rationalize why people download. Congratulations on not being a total douche (like me).
The main benefit to downloading is that you don't have to violate a criminal law to transcode the media into whatever format you want. I think if everybody could transcode their DVDs and Blu-Rays into formats playable on their portable player of choice without having to use specialized software to bypass ridiculous restrictions, they would be a lot more willing to stop downloading. Why? Because, for $0, they can currently do just that. If I can skip the previews for movies I've already seen and don't get accused of being a thief after I've paid for something, it's not even worth trying to track down a good version on BitTorrent and then worrying about being sued civilly for distribution.
Start properly identifying thievery.
Either quote where I said downloading was OK, answer to what I actually said, or, as requested in my original post, shut the god damned fuck up.
Did I say it was ok?
I said it wasn't theft, dumbass.
God I'm on a roll burning karma with you people today. Good thing I have plenty...
Which brings me to my next point. Karma.
I've spent my time on this site building up my karma; it's Excellent. I worked hard for that. I put a lot of effort into doing the right thing during my time here; and I'm still doing that. I do the same in life, as well. That effort, that hard work, all that doing the right thing... know what all that does?
It entitles me to a few oopses every now and then, complete with forgiveness.
The MPAA and RIAA have done precisely the opposite. They've burned so mach karma the never had to begin with. In Slashdot terms, they have the most negative karma possible, and they've spent years getting it there.
They made an oops with digital distribution and it will not be forgiven.