Us paying for it means we get more say and more responsibility in what goes on. It may cost a little extra, but the way things are going, it's NOT working. In fact, I always thought that the government policing P2P networks was the best way to balance the rights of the artist (and copyright holder) with people's legal rights. It's a compromise, sure. The copyright holders lose to casual sharing, and people have to pay for it. It's a whole lot better than the RIAA picking out whoever they want, and trying to force them to settle out of court.
So, in a nutshell, you now pay for the RIAA to prop up their outdated and failed business model.
Why yes, if by "outdated and failed business model", you mean "legally granted rights", and by "RIAA", you mean "artists and copyright holders including but definitely not limited to popular scapegoats like the RIAA and MPAA". Or you could just ignore me and watch more people lose a few of their own "outdated and failed business models" just because they were too cheap to just buy the friggin CD!
Mods, this isn't a troll, in case you were wondering.
... but let's think about this. Which would you prefer in this situation? Would you rather the RIAA be in charge of investigating and prosecuting file sharers, or would you rather a force at least represented by the government, whom you elect? At least the government is not driven purely by profit.
Basic plot still brilliant, but add Ewok side plot for marketting
Basic side plot exactly the same as first brilliant movie!
With breathtaking suspense, the rebels had to deal with a space station the size of a moon that could destroy planets. Now, how was poor old George going to finish his trilogy with the bang it deserves? Well, he just created a second death star! Oh, but this one had shield generators, and an emperor inside! Plus the old trench through which pilots had to fly while being chased by enemy fighters was replaced by a tunnel (through which pilots had to fly while being chased by enemy fighters)! And instead of that famous 2m hole requiring great skill and mastery of the force to hit in a single try, there's a big open space with a big thingy in the middle that can be shot by a one-eyed fighter pilot on an all-night bender!
Nah, I'm just kidding. It was a fun movie, even if it did feel a little bit too much like the first sometimes.
This situation is no longer a given. The amount of work of Arts is so immense, that no single person can ever hope to even have a look at the best 5%. Thus for the single person it is no longer important to foster the creation of new works of Art.
I disagree. Let's think about this. How could you possibly have formulated this opinion logically? We haven't seen a culture anywhere near this rich without copyright, so it's impossible to compare. What if copyright is a linchpin in our culture? How do we know that the number of works won't fall dramatically over time? Here's a sample argument:
We have copyright and a rich culture now. It's fuelled by the fact that often enough, if an artist's works are liked, he can generally subsist off them, and devote his time to being an artist. Also, many people not already in the game are vying to make their own works. It's not too difficult, because this massive culture penetrates everywhere, and inspiration is cheap and ubiquitous. People, having so much choice, are happy to spend money on art and entertainment.
Now, if we removed copyright, we would instantly see a drop in works from people who need money, or are just doing it for the money. There's no way of telling just how many people that is. Big distribution would close down, and it would really be relegated to the P2P sharing networks, who will flood with Hollywood romantic comedies poorly labelled Brittany Spears rips. Culture no longer penetrates how it used to, and people are feeling less and less inspired, especially with the falling rate of new works being produced. The record labels and Hollywood would still survive by the way, and they would start exclusively producing the more popular musicians/movies, because they're the only ones that make any money these days, but all at a severely reduced budget. Eventually, everyone is sick of all the old works, and they want new ones very very badly, but unfortunately few people are actually capable of producing new works in this culture-starved environment, even fewer have the means to distribute to everyone, and fewer still actually want to risk their "means" on a venture that's probably going to fail financially.
It's all very doom and gloom, but it makes sense, and there's no telling if it will or won't happen. You would be screwing with the system that brought us to where we are today, and it would be foolhardy to change it like that unless you were absolutely sure that things would continue more or less the way they're going. Thanks to copyright, we have more to lose culturally than we ever have had.
The definition of legal or illegal copies is becoming more and more circumstantial, it is no longer the object itself that reveals its own legality. It's the situation in which it got to you that makes the difference.
It was always circumstantial. It was never just about preventing flawed, non-identical copies, it was about preventing copies, and preventing copies (flawed or not) requires knowledge of the circumstances. For example, it's not like we prosecuted imperfect legitimate copies, even though their physical appearance matched that of an illegitimate copy. It was all about the circumstances that arose to create that copy.
Again, the population at large just doesn't care about economic theory or the association of ad viewership with any form of payment.
I know. That's no problem, so long as people don't do what the GP suggested and associate their definition of "free" with "up for grabs wherever and wherever they want". If they do, then they should care about the association of ad viewership with a form of payment, or else they could find themselves unnecessarily on the pointy end of a lawsuit.
You're not forced to watch them.
No, but that's not the way they work. Don't you confuse ads with free as well, because you really should know better. Without knowing about your specific case, often people who avoid ads still can hear or see ads, perhaps when they just start, or before the program begins again, or maybe from the kitchen or bathroom. Others actually sit in front of the ads, and they will actually have the highest chance of buying something. Even if you really can skip ads perfectly, then you are part of a small portion of the population. If that portion grows bigger, then television station revenue will fall, and more invasive ads will make up for the lost revenue. I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong, but if everyone could skip all ads perfectly, then we would have a big problem. All the "payment" from ads would be gone. That's exactly what would happen if everyone just downloaded their TV.
What's funny is that an artist's work is his property, but my work is my boss' property.
Well, that's between you and your boss.
This matters, you know. It isn't enough to say that unjust laws are laws, and must be obeyed anyway. The system has to have mechanisms to weed out bad laws.
I do know. And sure, copyright terms are extremely long. Still, unjust laws are laws, and they must be obeyed anyway, for the time being, until we can change them. If you've tried and found you can't, then I wouldn't begrudge you downloading works that were, say, at least 40 years old.
File sharing has one rather important distinction from theft. Namely, the punishments for theft as defined in the law are generally just, while punishment for file sharing as a subset of copyright infringement is unjust (as are the laws governing copyright as they currently stand).
That's pretty subjective. I would say that a distinction would be that copyright infringement carries a much larger capacity for further damage. The higher penalties are a result of that and the fact that only a tiny portion of sharers are actually caught, which means there needs to be a much larger disincentive. I'm not 100% sure whether that justifies the current amounts, but let's just say that calling them unjust glosses over some critical issues.
Okay that does make some more sense, but I don't really understand why we would make the distinction. No matter what the price of the first copy, copyright still has the same benefits, and copyright infringement still has the same effects. In fact, the fact that practically everyone can make their own first copy for next to nothing just intensifies the need for copyright.
Ohhhh, that's just what you WANT me to think! This is all just an delicate and elaborate plot to ever so slightly increase the chance that I will buy this game!
I think I'll go to bed. I've had WAY too much to drink.
Monopolies aren't illegal for the very good reason that sometimes monopolies are unavoidable, or at least the best option. Imagine if the single corner store in every little town had to close down shop because they were the only game in town. It'd just be silly, right? Not to mention counter-productive.
Similarly here, we have a situation where monopoly is far better to the alternative. Now we just have to make sure monopolies don't engage in anti-competitive practices.
You're disagreeing with the PP because they don't agree with what YOU think is "true".
Yup, that's pretty much the way things go.
Sharing != theft.
I haven't taken, I've made.
That's a very simplistic and highly ignorant attitude towards property. For example most people understand that copying money, while nothing is being taken and things are being made, it's not in our interest, because it devalues the rest of the currency. It means they are stealing something intangible (read: incomprehensible to you) from everyone. In the case of copyright infringement, you are devaluing the copyright, which belongs to the artist (or whoever the artist sells it too). Whether or not you believe that the artist should have it is another matter, but right now, they do own the copyright, and by violating it, you are devaluing it, and stealing something from them, even if you can't see it or feel it.
So, what you have with those are two industries that have created an entire empire on the APPEARANCE on giving their stuff away anyways.
Fixed that for you. They display a small amount of their catalogue at inflexible times for the price of ads, which makes them appear free. They also happen to sell add-free copies that you can play any time you want, but you have to pay for it (directly).
Perhaps the GP forgot to add the part about property. A work is the artist's property (whether you personally like it or not) and you may not use it. If you want change, fine, but for now, calling it theft isn't exactly a stretch.
there's an inbuilt assumption that copying & distribution is expensive, and therefore nobody would do it for free.
Just the opposite. There's an implicit assumption that copying & distribution is (or is going to be) cheap. Copyright law is supposed to prevent cheap copying and distribution. If it were expensive, then people generally wouldn't do it and we wouldn't need to ban it. In fact, that was exactly the case before copyright law. Reproducing works was difficult (and expensive) to impossible, so artists didn't need it to make a living.
I recently had the "file-sharing is theft" discussion with a manager i'm on otherwise good terms with, and the guy doesn't understand how fallacious it is to compare this activity to shoplifting.
Perhaps you just didn't understand why he did compare file sharing with shoplifting. Perhaps you are confusing "critical thinking" with "agreeing with you blindly on everything".
Truly, a human rights victory for the ages! Like that place... uh... what's it called? Something "square". I think it might be in India. Google's not coming up with anything.
As much as conspiracy theorists are wrong 99.99% of the time, they do serve the important purpose of making sure that conspiracies are not worth executing. Black Box, whether you consider them conspiracy theorists or not, help keep the bastards honest. And let's face it. We're all a bit of a bastard given the opportunity.
Can anyone tell me why the burden of proof is so, so, so much lower on political topics than any other type of intellectual discourse? Sorry, "intellectual discourse"? Could we, perhaps, start again, and stop stringing up our most hated politicians if we catch a whiff of a mistake, or the tiniest opportunity for corruption? I don't mean reasonable evidence, I mean total heresay. And to think people wonder why politicians are so secretive. Oh wait, no they don't, they just assume it's because they're power-hungry and eeeeevil!
My analogy represents the kind of oppression which would have to exist period before parasites like the MAFIAA stopped trying to litigate nascent industries out of business (along with a substantial chunk of fundamental human liberty).
Sure, but that's not really what we were talking about. It doesn't really work as a reply to the OP's "heavily loaded", but currently (or recently) accurate analogy.
Of course, I also disagree with you, but that's a separate matter. Since you weren't exactly asking for a rant, disregard this as an axe-to-grind if you want.
I think that it's possible to keep piracy down to an acceptable level by monitoring large anonymous communication channels. Channels where strangers share large volumes of digital data make up the largest part of piracy. I think we can curb 90% of piracy, while keeping the privacy of private communication. No public strip searches, I promise!
Wow, I haven't seen such a reactionary bunch in a long time. I don't know about in the US, but here in Australia, DVB-T looks a lot better than analogue. I'm in the fringes of a minor city and I get flawless digital reception, and my analogue is plagued with snow, ghosting, and extremely poor colour representation. And before anyone blames my TV, it's the same TV for both. Where I live, digital is undeniably better than analogue.
Enough about my experience, to all of you who are having trouble with DTV, wait. It will get better. If you've survived on analogue for this time, as soon as it's shut off, so too is a portion of their advertiser revenue. It's in their interests to make sure as many people as possible have access to TV, and when DTV is the only game in town, that's what they'll deliver.
Thanks for the analogy. Now it's a simple matter of seeing who's is more appropriate for the current situation.
And the winner is... the GP! He correctly identified that the target was not the ISPs, but in fact bittorrent and other P2P sharing software, and the things he mentioned were analogous to real life actions performed by companies behind certain P2P sharing software (e.g. bragging = advertising). All in all, it was a splendid analogy, and was only loaded because, well, some companies decided to load themselves that way.
As for your analogy, besides being wildly mis-aimed at the legal system in general, is also wildly inaccurate. In fact, so general was your attack, it's even a little hard to tell if this is analogy, or just a plain prophecy. Try again next week!
No-one was suggesting that. It was just a tool that could be (and often is) used to illegally distribute content. That, as you pointed out, doesn't make it illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh Grim Fandango! Wasn't that the game with an excellent plot and setting, but a broken and annoying control scheme?
Us paying for it means we get more say and more responsibility in what goes on. It may cost a little extra, but the way things are going, it's NOT working. In fact, I always thought that the government policing P2P networks was the best way to balance the rights of the artist (and copyright holder) with people's legal rights. It's a compromise, sure. The copyright holders lose to casual sharing, and people have to pay for it. It's a whole lot better than the RIAA picking out whoever they want, and trying to force them to settle out of court.
Why yes, if by "outdated and failed business model", you mean "legally granted rights", and by "RIAA", you mean "artists and copyright holders including but definitely not limited to popular scapegoats like the RIAA and MPAA". Or you could just ignore me and watch more people lose a few of their own "outdated and failed business models" just because they were too cheap to just buy the friggin CD!
Mods, this isn't a troll, in case you were wondering.
... but let's think about this. Which would you prefer in this situation? Would you rather the RIAA be in charge of investigating and prosecuting file sharers, or would you rather a force at least represented by the government, whom you elect? At least the government is not driven purely by profit.
Your comment reminded me of this comic.
Offtopic? Come on mods! It's the idle section!
Basic side plot exactly the same as first brilliant movie!
With breathtaking suspense, the rebels had to deal with a space station the size of a moon that could destroy planets. Now, how was poor old George going to finish his trilogy with the bang it deserves? Well, he just created a second death star! Oh, but this one had shield generators, and an emperor inside! Plus the old trench through which pilots had to fly while being chased by enemy fighters was replaced by a tunnel (through which pilots had to fly while being chased by enemy fighters)! And instead of that famous 2m hole requiring great skill and mastery of the force to hit in a single try, there's a big open space with a big thingy in the middle that can be shot by a one-eyed fighter pilot on an all-night bender!
Nah, I'm just kidding. It was a fun movie, even if it did feel a little bit too much like the first sometimes.
The converse, however, is false. We don't make laws based on minimising the number of criminals. Otherwise we simply wouldn't have a legal system.
I disagree. Let's think about this. How could you possibly have formulated this opinion logically? We haven't seen a culture anywhere near this rich without copyright, so it's impossible to compare. What if copyright is a linchpin in our culture? How do we know that the number of works won't fall dramatically over time? Here's a sample argument:
We have copyright and a rich culture now. It's fuelled by the fact that often enough, if an artist's works are liked, he can generally subsist off them, and devote his time to being an artist. Also, many people not already in the game are vying to make their own works. It's not too difficult, because this massive culture penetrates everywhere, and inspiration is cheap and ubiquitous. People, having so much choice, are happy to spend money on art and entertainment.
Now, if we removed copyright, we would instantly see a drop in works from people who need money, or are just doing it for the money. There's no way of telling just how many people that is. Big distribution would close down, and it would really be relegated to the P2P sharing networks, who will flood with Hollywood romantic comedies poorly labelled Brittany Spears rips. Culture no longer penetrates how it used to, and people are feeling less and less inspired, especially with the falling rate of new works being produced. The record labels and Hollywood would still survive by the way, and they would start exclusively producing the more popular musicians/movies, because they're the only ones that make any money these days, but all at a severely reduced budget. Eventually, everyone is sick of all the old works, and they want new ones very very badly, but unfortunately few people are actually capable of producing new works in this culture-starved environment, even fewer have the means to distribute to everyone, and fewer still actually want to risk their "means" on a venture that's probably going to fail financially.
It's all very doom and gloom, but it makes sense, and there's no telling if it will or won't happen. You would be screwing with the system that brought us to where we are today, and it would be foolhardy to change it like that unless you were absolutely sure that things would continue more or less the way they're going. Thanks to copyright, we have more to lose culturally than we ever have had.
It was always circumstantial. It was never just about preventing flawed, non-identical copies, it was about preventing copies, and preventing copies (flawed or not) requires knowledge of the circumstances. For example, it's not like we prosecuted imperfect legitimate copies, even though their physical appearance matched that of an illegitimate copy. It was all about the circumstances that arose to create that copy.
I know. That's no problem, so long as people don't do what the GP suggested and associate their definition of "free" with "up for grabs wherever and wherever they want". If they do, then they should care about the association of ad viewership with a form of payment, or else they could find themselves unnecessarily on the pointy end of a lawsuit.
No, but that's not the way they work. Don't you confuse ads with free as well, because you really should know better. Without knowing about your specific case, often people who avoid ads still can hear or see ads, perhaps when they just start, or before the program begins again, or maybe from the kitchen or bathroom. Others actually sit in front of the ads, and they will actually have the highest chance of buying something. Even if you really can skip ads perfectly, then you are part of a small portion of the population. If that portion grows bigger, then television station revenue will fall, and more invasive ads will make up for the lost revenue. I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong, but if everyone could skip all ads perfectly, then we would have a big problem. All the "payment" from ads would be gone. That's exactly what would happen if everyone just downloaded their TV.
Well, that's between you and your boss.
I do know. And sure, copyright terms are extremely long. Still, unjust laws are laws, and they must be obeyed anyway, for the time being, until we can change them. If you've tried and found you can't, then I wouldn't begrudge you downloading works that were, say, at least 40 years old.
That's pretty subjective. I would say that a distinction would be that copyright infringement carries a much larger capacity for further damage. The higher penalties are a result of that and the fact that only a tiny portion of sharers are actually caught, which means there needs to be a much larger disincentive. I'm not 100% sure whether that justifies the current amounts, but let's just say that calling them unjust glosses over some critical issues.
Okay that does make some more sense, but I don't really understand why we would make the distinction. No matter what the price of the first copy, copyright still has the same benefits, and copyright infringement still has the same effects. In fact, the fact that practically everyone can make their own first copy for next to nothing just intensifies the need for copyright.
Ohhhh, that's just what you WANT me to think! This is all just an delicate and elaborate plot to ever so slightly increase the chance that I will buy this game!
I think I'll go to bed. I've had WAY too much to drink.
Monopolies aren't illegal for the very good reason that sometimes monopolies are unavoidable, or at least the best option. Imagine if the single corner store in every little town had to close down shop because they were the only game in town. It'd just be silly, right? Not to mention counter-productive.
Similarly here, we have a situation where monopoly is far better to the alternative. Now we just have to make sure monopolies don't engage in anti-competitive practices.
Yup, that's pretty much the way things go.
That's a very simplistic and highly ignorant attitude towards property. For example most people understand that copying money, while nothing is being taken and things are being made, it's not in our interest, because it devalues the rest of the currency. It means they are stealing something intangible (read: incomprehensible to you) from everyone. In the case of copyright infringement, you are devaluing the copyright, which belongs to the artist (or whoever the artist sells it too). Whether or not you believe that the artist should have it is another matter, but right now, they do own the copyright, and by violating it, you are devaluing it, and stealing something from them, even if you can't see it or feel it.
Fixed that for you. They display a small amount of their catalogue at inflexible times for the price of ads, which makes them appear free. They also happen to sell add-free copies that you can play any time you want, but you have to pay for it (directly).
Perhaps the GP forgot to add the part about property. A work is the artist's property (whether you personally like it or not) and you may not use it. If you want change, fine, but for now, calling it theft isn't exactly a stretch.
Just the opposite. There's an implicit assumption that copying & distribution is (or is going to be) cheap. Copyright law is supposed to prevent cheap copying and distribution. If it were expensive, then people generally wouldn't do it and we wouldn't need to ban it. In fact, that was exactly the case before copyright law. Reproducing works was difficult (and expensive) to impossible, so artists didn't need it to make a living.
Perhaps you just didn't understand why he did compare file sharing with shoplifting. Perhaps you are confusing "critical thinking" with "agreeing with you blindly on everything".
Truly, a human rights victory for the ages! Like that place ... uh ... what's it called? Something "square". I think it might be in India. Google's not coming up with anything.
As much as conspiracy theorists are wrong 99.99% of the time, they do serve the important purpose of making sure that conspiracies are not worth executing. Black Box, whether you consider them conspiracy theorists or not, help keep the bastards honest. And let's face it. We're all a bit of a bastard given the opportunity.
Can anyone tell me why the burden of proof is so, so, so much lower on political topics than any other type of intellectual discourse? Sorry, "intellectual discourse"? Could we, perhaps, start again, and stop stringing up our most hated politicians if we catch a whiff of a mistake, or the tiniest opportunity for corruption? I don't mean reasonable evidence, I mean total heresay. And to think people wonder why politicians are so secretive. Oh wait, no they don't, they just assume it's because they're power-hungry and eeeeevil!
Sure, but that's not really what we were talking about. It doesn't really work as a reply to the OP's "heavily loaded", but currently (or recently) accurate analogy.
Of course, I also disagree with you, but that's a separate matter. Since you weren't exactly asking for a rant, disregard this as an axe-to-grind if you want.
I think that it's possible to keep piracy down to an acceptable level by monitoring large anonymous communication channels. Channels where strangers share large volumes of digital data make up the largest part of piracy. I think we can curb 90% of piracy, while keeping the privacy of private communication. No public strip searches, I promise!
Wow, I haven't seen such a reactionary bunch in a long time. I don't know about in the US, but here in Australia, DVB-T looks a lot better than analogue. I'm in the fringes of a minor city and I get flawless digital reception, and my analogue is plagued with snow, ghosting, and extremely poor colour representation. And before anyone blames my TV, it's the same TV for both. Where I live, digital is undeniably better than analogue.
Enough about my experience, to all of you who are having trouble with DTV, wait. It will get better. If you've survived on analogue for this time, as soon as it's shut off, so too is a portion of their advertiser revenue. It's in their interests to make sure as many people as possible have access to TV, and when DTV is the only game in town, that's what they'll deliver.
Thanks for the analogy. Now it's a simple matter of seeing who's is more appropriate for the current situation.
And the winner is... the GP! He correctly identified that the target was not the ISPs, but in fact bittorrent and other P2P sharing software, and the things he mentioned were analogous to real life actions performed by companies behind certain P2P sharing software (e.g. bragging = advertising). All in all, it was a splendid analogy, and was only loaded because, well, some companies decided to load themselves that way.
As for your analogy, besides being wildly mis-aimed at the legal system in general, is also wildly inaccurate. In fact, so general was your attack, it's even a little hard to tell if this is analogy, or just a plain prophecy. Try again next week!
No-one was suggesting that. It was just a tool that could be (and often is) used to illegally distribute content. That, as you pointed out, doesn't make it illegal.