New copyright enforcement bill on its way

[Gorgon]

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. I'm with the whiners all the way-

[Monte Carlo]

Please make a forum post after you've been burgled. Then we will all try to persuade you to feel sorry for the thief, after all your property was just lying there, waiting to be taken right?

[Meshugger]

As soon as the public has accepted that sites can be shut down for little or no reason, there will be groups that will try to get rid of sites that break obcenity laws. Then they will come after the racists and extremists. And later [insert any form of non-conformitist group]. Interest groups wishes to have the power to remove what they find irritating, embarressing or immoral from the internet. Companies wishes to control their own financial interests on the internet, and the states wishes to control the very flow of information itself. These groups will sooner or later coalesce and agree upon a common framework.

 

Sorry, but it isn't it a bit hyperbolic to equate protecting basic property rights with totalitarianism?

 

The interests of the MPAA, RIAA or any other similar interest group is not as simple as protecting basic property rights. It is about corporative dominance, where the federal government have to act on the behalf of private interest groups, which goes against everything about being equal in front of the law. Even the Bush administration understood that and vetoed the previous bill.

[Meshugger]

Please make a forum post after you've been burgled. Then we will all try to persuade you to feel sorry for the thief, after all your property was just lying there, waiting to be taken right?

 

The law as it is already enforces against simple "warezing" or theft. However, the fines are ridicolous, unreasonable and lack any scientific base. Since the accuser can not prove a lost sale, and the defendant got no monitary gain from it, the conclusion is a standard fine that is based on his or her income.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The interests of the MPAA, RIAA or any other similar interest group is not as simple as protecting basic property rights. It is about corporative dominance, where the federal government have to act on the behalf of private interest groups, which goes against everything about being equal in front of the law. Even the Bush administration understood that and vetoed the previous bill.

Their interest is in protecting their property, which is something the government has a duty to assist them with. And contrary to what was said in this thread, private entities can't shut down websites, the Justice Department would be able to do it (subject to judicial review) or a court order would have to be obtained. As far as You Tube, that situation has been resolved, there's no chance they'd get shut down.

[heathen]

It's funny how you all seem to think downloading an album or a movie is the same as stealing it. It's not. Technology has moved forward and it's about the same kind of a leap as back when betamax / video cassettes / c-cassettes were introduced. The music and movie industries are trying to hung onto their old, very lucrative business model that's simply not working with the current tech we have. There's no turning back the time, either.

[Moose]

I can't remember the last time I downloaded a game that I didn't already own, or wasn't abandonware. Are there really that many people in the U.S / U.K that do this?

 

I think regards to music/films/tv, people have been downloading these for free for so long now, well over a decade, that to many it automatically feels like a right.

 

For a lot of us, we've been extremely lucky to live through this golden age of freeloading, but it was never going to last in its current form. There will always be alternatives though, like actually putting the torrent index shared in the hive. No ISP is going to ban every single one of their customers, and no government is going to shutdown every one of their ISPs.

 

You have to remember governments are made up of people to, many of whom would like to continue using the internet.

[Purkake]

Good thread A+, would read again.

 

 

Don't forget to include all the pirates from the AP forum

 

[Meshugger]

The interests of the MPAA, RIAA or any other similar interest group is not as simple as protecting basic property rights. It is about corporative dominance, where the federal government have to act on the behalf of private interest groups, which goes against everything about being equal in front of the law. Even the Bush administration understood that and vetoed the previous bill.

Their interest is in protecting their property, which is something the government has a duty to assist them with. And contrary to what was said in this thread, private entities can't shut down websites, the Justice Department would be able to do it (subject to judicial review) or a court order would have to be obtained. As far as You Tube, that situation has been resolved, there's no chance they'd get shut down.

 

Read the bill again, which other organization or individual would have their property rights enforced like MPAA and RIAA? none. Which is why this bill should be pointed at, laughed at, and be burned up.

[Hurlshort]

It's funny how you all seem to think downloading an album or a movie is the same as stealing it. It's not. Technology has moved forward and it's about the same kind of a leap as back when betamax / video cassettes / c-cassettes were introduced. The music and movie industries are trying to hung onto their old, very lucrative business model that's simply not working with the current tech we have. There's no turning back the time, either.

 

You are trying to justify something that is quite simple. You have a company that puts time and resources into a product, and then they ask for a certain amount of money for it. When you take it without paying, it doesn't matter what you call it, it is wrong.

[Gorgon]

It's not really the practice itself, it's the ease of it. Anyone who got moral convulsions back in the day about making mix tapes and giving them to your friends raise their hands.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The interests of the MPAA, RIAA or any other similar interest group is not as simple as protecting basic property rights. It is about corporative dominance, where the federal government have to act on the behalf of private interest groups, which goes against everything about being equal in front of the law. Even the Bush administration understood that and vetoed the previous bill.

Their interest is in protecting their property, which is something the government has a duty to assist them with. And contrary to what was said in this thread, private entities can't shut down websites, the Justice Department would be able to do it (subject to judicial review) or a court order would have to be obtained. As far as You Tube, that situation has been resolved, there's no chance they'd get shut down.

 

Read the bill again, which other organization or individual would have their property rights enforced like MPAA and RIAA? none. Which is why this bill should be pointed at, laughed at, and be burned up.

If someone steals from me, I can go to the police and they have to take action. How is this any different?

[Hurlshort]

It's not really the practice itself, it's the ease of it. Anyone who got moral convulsions back in the day about making mix tapes and giving them to your friends raise their hands.

 

Giving a mix tape to a friend or two is a lot different then giving out mix tapes to a few thousand folks.

[Meshugger]

It's not really the practice itself, it's the ease of it. Anyone who got moral convulsions back in the day about making mix tapes and giving them to your friends raise their hands.

 

Giving a mix tape to a friend or two is a lot different then giving out mix tapes to a few thousand folks.

 

90% of all torrents have a 1-4 ratio. Which of course translates to four friends per guy

[Nepenthe]

It's not really the practice itself, it's the ease of it. Anyone who got moral convulsions back in the day about making mix tapes and giving them to your friends raise their hands.

 

Giving a mix tape to a friend or two is a lot different then giving out mix tapes to a few thousand folks.

 

90% of all torrents have a 1-4 ratio. Which of course translates to four friends per guy

 

Total completed downloads would be a more reflective statistic.... Because you've streamlined your mixtape distribution service to the point where your friends are passing on copies of their own, not just to 'their friends' but your's as well.

[Zoraptor]

^ Yours is an all-or-nothing argument. The issue is simply people stealing a sixty-dollar product online as tangibly as if they'd walked into a shop, concealed the item in their clothing and waltzed off without paying. You've stretched that into a thin end of the wedge type scenario whereby an army of eagle-eyed IP lawyers are going to chase down kids in Somewhere, Ohio, for making their own Lego Star Wars movies by using voice clips from George Lucas movies.

 

That ain't gonna happen.

Well, no. But that's because Lucas has said that that scenario is AOK and has in the past actually publicised fan projects.

 

On the other hand, eagle eyed IP lawyers are already running around the net throwing cease and desists at unauthorised usage whether commercial or not. Try remaking an Ultima without EA's permission and despite them not doing squat with Ultima you'll still get a lovely cease and desist as soon as they notice it. Unless you happen to have got permission from Richard Garriott when he had the power to grant permission, at least.

 

Further, shop analogies are inapt. The only real analogy to torrent based systems is a bunch of people playing collectable card games swapping and photocopying cards to get the full set rather than buying them from the publisher.

 

Even further, it's simply not theft or stealing as both require an owner to be deprived of physical property. It's copyright infringement (by means of unauthorised duplication). Calling it theft or stealing is a call to emotion that has forever been poisoned by those inane anti piracy diatribes at the start of legit DVDs (I wouldn't steal a car? No, but I also didn't steal this DVD and its nett effect is that I would like to kick inane MPAA anti piracy video makers in the nutsacks with an iron toed winklepicker)

 

Also, ITT WoD supports government intervention in and control of the internet...

[heathen]

It's funny how you all seem to think downloading an album or a movie is the same as stealing it. It's not. Technology has moved forward and it's about the same kind of a leap as back when betamax / video cassettes / c-cassettes were introduced. The music and movie industries are trying to hung onto their old, very lucrative business model that's simply not working with the current tech we have. There's no turning back the time, either.

 

You are trying to justify something that is quite simple. You have a company that puts time and resources into a product, and then they ask for a certain amount of money for it. When you take it without paying, it doesn't matter what you call it, it is wrong.

 

I'm not justifying it. I think it's wrong as well. It just happens to be how things are. There's two options: either make the internet a closed system or adapt to a world where all IP is free. There's no other options, really. They're fighting a war that was lost 10 years ago now.

[Gorth]

It's funny how you all seem to think downloading an album or a movie is the same as stealing it. It's not. Technology has moved forward and it's about the same kind of a leap as back when betamax / video cassettes / c-cassettes were introduced. The music and movie industries are trying to hung onto their old, very lucrative business model that's simply not working with the current tech we have. There's no turning back the time, either.

So, because it is easy to steal and the probability of getting caught low, you think it is Ok?

 

Parasites with self entitlement issues is the reason legislation like this even comes up in the first instance.

 

When you go to the hair dresser and get a haircut, do you decide when leaving that his time and effort wasn't worth your money and then leave without paying? Probably not, because it is easier to get caught. The mentality is the same though. Why should *I* have to pay if I can weasel my way out of it. I can always try to make up feeble, pathetic excuses afterwards, like nobody gets hurt and everybody else are stealing, so it can't really be wrong, can it? It must be the victims fault, because I am not really a bad person normally. Grow up.

 

Bottom line, there is nothing essential you need to survive on the internet. There is only explanations for piracy, no excuses.

[Humodour]

Please make a forum post after you've been burgled. Then we will all try to persuade you to feel sorry for the thief, after all your property was just lying there, waiting to be taken right?

 

Copyright is NOT property rights.

 

****, I would've thought the more Libertarian-leaning people on this board would be the most astute ones on this matter. Guess not.

[Oblarg]

Look, what everyone here is overlooking is the fact that this is ultimately irrelevant. You cannot force the majority of the populace to comply with copyright law in its current form because it is not designed for the ease of copying information that now exists. Above all else, law relies on widespread public compliance, and in this case there is none.

 

And even were we to assume that the music industry did somehow lobby a bill into place that resulted in measures so draconian that all piracy were stomped out, the industry would eventually adapt to the market when they realize that their current business model is ****ing moronic.

[Purkake]

Aww, I was looking forward to a dystopian future where the evil megacorporations control the internet and "internet pirates" would actually be bike messengers with a bunch of flash drives

[Oblarg]

Aww, I was looking forward to a dystopian future where the evil megacorporations control the internet and "internet pirates" would actually be bike messengers with a bunch of flash drives

 

The sad thing is there are many, many people who seem convinced that this will be the case.

 

The truth of the matter is that there would be absolutely no public support for internet policing to the degree that would be required to stomp out piracy. Politicians tend to not get reelected when they introduce laws that everyone hates. This is how democracy works.

 

Moral arguments on piracy are completely beside the fact that piracy will continue, and the market will eventually adapt.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Oblarg

[Purkake]

Looking at Australia for a second, I don't think the majority of the public cares or even understands the issue. You'd have to actively campaign against it for anyone to actually grasp the implications.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Purkake

[Wrath of Dagon]

Also, ITT WoD supports government intervention in and control of the internet...

I've said many times that law enforcement is a proper function of government, I'm not an anarchist.

[Monte Carlo]

Please make a forum post after you've been burgled. Then we will all try to persuade you to feel sorry for the thief, after all your property was just lying there, waiting to be taken right?

 

Copyright is NOT property rights.

 

****, I would've thought the more Libertarian-leaning people on this board would be the most astute ones on this matter. Guess not.

 

Libertarians respect property rights, it's one of the cornerstones of libertarianism. The copyright / property right argument is also false. You are freely creating something that you would otherwise buy and depriving the creator of the legitimate profit of his or her labour. It's theft, however much semantic loop-the-looping you want to undertake.