The Pirate Bay Found Guilty

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Both are considered theft and a criminal activity.

Only in recent times. That is a relatively new change to the way copyright infringement is handled. You are dishonest if you claim that copyright infringement has always been a criminal matter. Copyright law has existed in this nation since 1790. I wonder why infringement only became criminal within the past 15 years or so, if it has always been a crime? Please explain.

They have different names and different punishments. You are the one trying to say that if something isn't in physical format, it shouldn't be a criminal case.

Indeed, because it served us just fine for the first 200+ years of copyright law in this nation. I see no need for government (aka taxpayers) to foot the bill now (which is the real magic behind making it criminal).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Only in recent times. That is a relatively new change to the way copyright infringement is handled. You are dishonest if you claim that copyright infringement has always been a criminal matter. Copyright law has existed in this nation since 1790. I wonder why infringement only became criminal within the past 15 years or so, if it has always been a crime? Please explain.

Indeed, because it served us just fine for the first 200+ years of copyright law in this nation. I see no need for government (aka taxpayers) to foot the bill now (which is the real magic behind making it criminal).

Times have changed and so has technology. That is why laws have evolved. There was no way that we could have foreseen music and movies being transfered digitally from one person to another in seconds 50 years ago.

I just think it's absurd that you want to make the theft of something criminal because you can hold it in your hand but civil if it can't be held in your hand. Just doesn't work in this day in age.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I just think it's absurd that you want to make the theft of something criminal because you can hold it in your hand but civil if it can't be held in your hand. Just doesn't work in this day in age.

Wonder why that was the case for 200+ years then? I understand the changes in the world, but if it should have always been criminal, why wasn't it?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Wonder why that was the case for 200+ years then? I understand the changes in the world, but if it should have always been criminal, why wasn't it?

So if someone logs into your bank account online and steals your money, it should be handled in civil court, right?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So if someone logs into your bank account online and steals your money, it should be handled in civil court, right?

No, but I guarantee it won't be called copyright infringement and it won't be a situation where it was a civil issue for 200+ years. You are totally awesome at completely distorting the real issue.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

No, but I guarantee it won't be called copyright infringement and it won't be a situation where it was a civil issue for 200+ years. You are totally awesome at completely distorting the real issue.

Slavery was also a civil issue 200 years ago and had been one across the globe for centuries. The argument that just because something was treated a certain way 200 years ago it should be treated the same now is absurd. Especially when you consider the massive technological advances we've seen.

Not everyone wants to live under the same laws we had in the 1800's.

[gstelmack]

Music may be a touchier area for some folks because there is no tech support, etc (it's much like how people used to record songs from radio on to tape). Video games certainly lead to direct stealing when I talk about tech support and generating a "buggy" reputation from pre-release stolen builds.

When we talk about tech, one key difference is the ability to produce "perfect" copies in the modern age. It used to be that each analog-produced copy was worse quality than the original, but in the age of digital no quality need be lost. That has made a difference as well. Books used to be expensive to make copies of, now it's dirt cheap.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

When we talk about tech, one key difference is the ability to produce "perfect" copies in the modern age. It used to be that each analog-produced copy was worse quality than the original, but in the age of digital no quality need be lost. That has made a difference as well. Books used to be expensive to make copies of, now it's dirt cheap.

I do not know, but are you claiming that the vast majority of copyright infringement w/ music is in loss-less audio formats? If so, then it really could be a situation of perfect copies. If it isn't in a loss-less format, then there is definitely going to be degradation from the original.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Slavery was also a civil issue 200 years ago and had been one across the globe for centuries.

Now the slavery comparison is made. Bravo. That has to do with human rights. Not exactly the same and you must know this in your heart (I hope).

The argument that just because something was treated a certain way 200 years ago it should be treated the same now is absurd.

Not 200 years ago, big guy. It wasn't even criminal 30 years ago. It wasn't even criminal 20 years ago. Doesn't mean you did not have the right to sue someone who violated your copyright, but they didn't go to jail for it.

Especially when you consider the massive technological advances we've seen.

Things change. You adapt to the new reality. You don't suddenly create new criminals. I know that isn't the way most people think, though.

Not everyone wants to live under the same laws we had in the 1800's.

Indeed.

[RainMaker]

So is your entire argument for being against criminalizing intellectual property theft is that the law was different from the 1800's up till a decade or so ago?

The Supreme Court would be thoroughly impressed with the argument.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The Supreme Court would be thoroughly impressed with the argument.

Maybe even as impressed as I am with your strawman parade.

[SirFozzie]

Funny, Rain, your courts and the US Courts don't seem to agree....

Groklaw - Judge Tells RIAA Attorney: "Stop Using Abusive Language, Like Calling File Sharing 'Piracy'"

From the Judge

"Let me say what I think your problem is. You can use these harsh terms, but you are dealing with something new, and the question is, does the statutory monopoly that Congress has given you reach out to that something new. And that's a very debatable question. You don't solve it by calling it 'theft.' You have to show why this court should extend a statutory monopoly to cover the new thing. That's your problem. Address that if you would. And curtail the use of abusive language."

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Funny, Rain, your courts and the US Courts don't seem to agree....

Groklaw - Judge Tells RIAA Attorney: "Stop Using Abusive Language, Like Calling File Sharing 'Piracy'"

From the Judge

"Let me say what I think your problem is. You can use these harsh terms, but you are dealing with something new, and the question is, does the statutory monopoly that Congress has given you reach out to that something new. And that's a very debatable question. You don't solve it by calling it 'theft.' You have to show why this court should extend a statutory monopoly to cover the new thing. That's your problem. Address that if you would. And curtail the use of abusive language."

We were discussing whether stealing intellectual property is considered theft, not file sharing. The judge in that case ruled that the file sharing had legitimate legal uses and was talking specifically about that.

[SirFozzie]

But File Sharing IS stealing IP, I thought.. that's the argument you were trying to make before. Ergo, File Sharing=Theft to you.. but not at the least settled at the legal level (or if it is settled, that it is NOT)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

But File Sharing IS stealing IP, I thought.. that's the argument you were trying to make before. Ergo, File Sharing=Theft to you.. but not at the least settled at the legal level (or if it is settled, that it is NOT)

Not at all. File sharing is a method of transferring files. It is often used to steal intellectual property, but that doesn't make it theft.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We were discussing whether stealing intellectual property is considered theft, not file sharing.

I'm open to the concept that "stealing" intellectual property could be criminal. What they commonly call "copyright infringement" is not the stealing of intellectual property, it is the unauthorized distribution of intellectual property. Not quite the same as stealing it outright so that the original owner doesn't even have it anymore.

[MJ4H]

Um, file sharing is perfectly legal. It is only if the information contained in the file is protected in some way that we have an issue. There is nothing inherently bad about file sharing. The internet is practically based on it.

[SportsDino]

You can't make any money off intellectual property if you don't control the rights to its distribution. It is a completely illogical argument to say that you are 'not stealing' anything because they still have the original 'copy'.

If you can't understand how it is a crime, imagine big giant corporations as the villains committing these acts. If you can say that giant RIAA, instead of paying artists, instead systematically copies their intellectual content and undercuts the price of the original artist (free distribution with ads)... and that you wouldn't have a problem with that, well at least you would be drinking your own kool aid.

For every imaginative writer, artist, or singer (not to mention inventor), there are probably 99 other mouth breathing morons in this world. Given how much of a pain it is already to get paid for creating something awesome, do you really want to undercut the entire capability of them to make a profit at all? If it comes down to a vote the mob will always select screw the minority, even if in the long run it means so many wonderful pieces of art will never see the light of day. That is why we have to have ethics, and develop and update laws to comply with them. Quit taking away an artist's rights just because a crowd is a selfish pile of jerks that are enjoying a grey area in between laws being redefined for a new age.

Edit: File sharing itself is not illegal. It merely is a form of communication. The legal issue is the ability to create entire copies (either perfect or with some loss). There are even exceptions for fair use so people can communicate about intellectual property without breaking the law, but there is a threshold for that so the original creator of the idea still has some profit incentive. Even compressed music does not meet that threshold, it is like changing the title to 'A' Lord of the Rings and occaisonally chopping a sentence here and there, still wrong!

[MJ4H]

I love that post with all my heart.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

You can't make any money off intellectual property if you don't control the rights to its distribution. It is a completely illogical argument to say that you are 'not stealing' anything because they still have the original 'copy'.

Theft of revenues, perhaps. Those are the damages.

If you can't understand how it is a crime, imagine big giant corporations as the villains committing these acts. If you can say that giant RIAA, instead of paying artists, instead systematically copies their intellectual content and undercuts the price of the original artist (free distribution with ads)... and that you wouldn't have a problem with that, well at least you would be drinking your own kool aid.

What are you talking about? I've been advocating suing people/companies for violations the whole time. I suppose you may be talking about someone else, because I have never once said anybody gets a free ride here. If a big company were to do it, you sue them and take the money you would've made. Perhaps you've been drinking some other kind of kool aid.

Given how much of a pain it is already to get paid for creating something awesome, do you really want to undercut the entire capability of them to make a profit at all?

If a violator of your copyright goes to jail, how much does that add to your bank account?

If it comes down to a vote the mob will always select screw the minority, even if in the long run it means so many wonderful pieces of art will never see the light of day. That is why we have to have ethics, and develop and update laws to comply with them. Quit taking away an artist's rights just because a crowd is a selfish pile of jerks that are enjoying a grey area in between laws being redefined for a new age.

Were we not seeing any good art produced in the United States of America prior to the '90s? This is a relevant question because that is when copyright violation in itself finally became criminal. Good thing they finally came around and made copyright violation criminal, or we might never have amounted to squat.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

Even compressed music does not meet that threshold, it is like changing the title to 'A' Lord of the Rings and occaisonally chopping a sentence here and there, still wrong!

This analogy seems weak. It would be much more like chopping off a few lines from the top and bottom of every page.

[SportsDino]

You seem to have a big hangup on whether it is civil or criminal court. I think in an ideal world where civil suits were easy and efficient, I might agree, but if the problem and scope is getting out of hand (as it clearly is), I think it is well within the government to consider it a matter of public policy to criminalize the behavior. I believe that is what occurred, it is not some magical overnight matter of "we want to imprison bootleggers".

Really to me this is really no different than how physical theft should be treated. You have your minor shoplifting treated as a misdemeanor, or you have your grand theft (say stealing revenues on 100,000 copies of a video game, what is that, three to five million, certainly a felony). Apparently, as a matter of promoting the public good, theft has been considered a matter for enforcement in the criminal courts... even though it could clearly be handled as a purely civil matter (in theory). So explain the difference, especially now that you've basically admitted that a theft is occurring (consider it a theft of cash as a parallel if a published work is too abstract to consider).

If the violator goes to jail, at the very least I can assume for some amount of time he is not going to be actively distributing my content. It also acts as a disincentive to performing the act again. It is a matter of the courts to assign reasonable punishments to convictions, and they can, and have, been challenged throughout our history. Also, I'm reasonably sure that conviction in a criminal court does not prevent seeking a lawsuit in civil court for damages.

Finally, there was plenty of great works created before the concept of copyright law was even considered. The problem for thieves was that replication of a statue, book, or other such work often was more difficult than just snatching the original. As reproduction of works becomes easier, laws have changed. If it takes criminal courts to stop piracy, I would prefer that over just saying content creators are screwed, and need to go to great lengths to protect their work in addition to its original creation.

A better analogy would be to take a copy of lord of the rings, and smudge the ink here and there, but such that it is still readable. Sure you are 'losing content' but not such to the point you are missing words or actions from the story. With the common compression there is these days, its hard to even call it truly lossy... you need to be a technician to understand how its any different (or have a good ear).

[Atocep]

I'll start this off with the following disclaimer: I don't pirate games. The only music I've ever downloaded are songs I've bought at one point or another in my life and either had the physical copy stolen, lost, scratched to shit, or something else that keeps me from listening to it. I don't support it, but I know its the reality of today's market.

However, I do know quite a few people that pirate games for one reason or another. Some just do it because its free stuff. Some do it to give a game a serious try before buying. Some do it for a mix of the two reasons above. One friend I have does it because he lives in South Korea now and even though he would gladly pay for the games he plays, he's unable to in most cases. He can't use D2D, he can't use Steam, and he can't buy games from stores there because they're Korean copies.

The problem with the industries, and throughout this thread, is that there's a significant failure to adapt to the current market. You can stomp your feet, claim that whatever business model used is your right to choose, and complain when your shit gets pirated or you can adapt to the situation. Whether people like it or not, the public is who chooses whether or not your business model works. Whether it fails because your product sucks or because you made it easy for people to steal is really inconsiquential because, when it comes down to it, you failed.

Stardock is mentioned above because of the Demi-god disaster, but at the same time Stardock has embraced piracy and for a couple reasons. They have zero copy protection on their games because 1.) They've realized that out of the people that pirate their games a small percentage would probably still buy them if no pirated copies were available and you can write it off all you want, but word of mouth from the people that pirate does help sales and 2.) They want to treat their customers like paying customers instead of assuming everyone is going to steal their games. Yes, they got screwed over in this scenario, but I think even stardock would admit the word of mouth from playing thier games has helped them build a following.

Gabe Newell from Valve stated earlier this year that Valve treats pirates as paying customers. He said the trick is to find a business model that gives people a reason to buy their games rather than pirate them. If you look at Left for Dead, you can go online and download the single player game and its ok, but nothing special. Where Left for Dead shines is in its multiplayer gameplayer, which requires a purchased copy to play.

There are games out there now that advertise the fact that they don't use copy protection because they want their game on as many computers as possible. The puzzle quest games immediately come to mind here.

This thread actually gives a lot of insight as to why the industries refuse to change. People simply expect everyone to do things the way they want them to be done rather than changing the way they do things in order to maximize their profits.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

You seem to have a big hangup on whether it is civil or criminal court. I think in an ideal world where civil suits were easy and efficient, I might agree, but if the problem and scope is getting out of hand (as it clearly is), I think it is well within the government to consider it a matter of public policy to criminalize the behavior. I believe that is what occurred, it is not some magical overnight matter of "we want to imprison bootleggers".

I find it very interesting that copyright terms have been extended at the same time that enforcement of them has become so difficult that it has to be handed over to the government. It seems to me that the pendulum has swung too far. Not only do they get copyright terms that are longer than many will live to see, but they get criminal prosecutions to boot.

So explain the difference, especially now that you've basically admitted that a theft is occurring (consider it a theft of cash as a parallel if a published work is too abstract to consider).

A bad choice of words by me. More like causing a loss of revenue, which is not the same thing as stealing it outright. I simply see copyright infringement as a end run around the typical distribution model. It would be more like a company that has a policy to only allow certain authorized dealers to peddle their product, and somebody else comes along and starts selling it (or even giving it away) without proper authorization. This, in itself, is not criminal. It is going to be a civil matter handled before a judge. Any involvement of law enforcement will likely be limited to the enforcement of a cease-and-desist order (once that order has been violated).

If the violator goes to jail, at the very least I can assume for some amount of time he is not going to be actively distributing my content. It also acts as a disincentive to performing the act again. It is a matter of the courts to assign reasonable punishments to convictions, and they can, and have, been challenged throughout our history. Also, I'm reasonably sure that conviction in a criminal court does not prevent seeking a lawsuit in civil court for damages.

Of course you can still sue for damages. However, aren't you more likely to collect from someone who is not behind bars in a correctional facility? I understand the urge for more punitive measures to be in place. That merely having a chance to recover your lost revenue does not provide the emotional relief that watching somebody get taken away in an orange jumpsuit would.

Finally, there was plenty of great works created before the concept of copyright law was even considered. The problem for thieves was that replication of a statue, book, or other such work often was more difficult than just snatching the original. As reproduction of works becomes easier, laws have changed. If it takes criminal courts to stop piracy, I would prefer that over just saying content creators are screwed, and need to go to great lengths to protect their work in addition to its original creation.

Are content creators really screwed? Do we know this to be true? It is hard to find good data to support the positions of any side when it comes to this, because it appears to often be shaped to support whatever cause is being promoted. Perhaps you could point me to some trustworthy sources that could help me form a new view of this situation.

With the common compression there is these days, its hard to even call it truly lossy... you need to be a technician to understand how its any different (or have a good ear).

It depends on the kind of music you listen to. Many classical recordings that I have heard with the standard compression found in iTunes, for example, are hardly what the originals are. You lose the dynamic range required to really appreciate what some of these composers (and performers) were doing.

Compressed music certainly is worth more than nothing, but to declare it a perfect copy of the original is absurd.

[CU Tiger]

I generally stay out of these threads, because I have a skewed view in most peoples eyes.

That being: If I am an artist and I paint a famous painting and then stand on the street corner handing out photo copies, can I be upset if someone copies and freely distributes one of my copies? To me this is what radio does and why I think many people have a disassociation with file downloading and theft.

A more interesting question to me is, what about the music that would never be purchased? An example "American Pie" (The Don McClean song not the movie) is an American classic and one I have a "pirated" copy of on my MP3 player, however would never in a million years have paid even $.99 for it(and I can assure you its not the only one), have I harmed anyone?

Secondly the thought that intellectual property is 90 or 80 or even 60% of a CD cost is ludicrous. To suggest so ignores hard material (CD, Jewel Case, and liner material and production), distribution (most would be shocked how significant this is), advertising and marketing, and other artist fees (cover art, producng, etc.) and RADIO PROMOTION..thats right you pay so they can give it away to others for free.

What if I buy a CD and then play it on a boom box on my dock at such a level that the entire lake can hear the music free of charge....have I unfairly distributed their music?
Would I be due a promotion and distribution fee?

I think the intellectual property argument is weak at best since MOST artists make 80% of their income off concert and merchandise sales, as a result it CAN be argued that pirates help promote the artist.

Do I download music? I have however I currently have no means of which to download it on my PC but wouldnt mind changing that.

Do I think its "wrong"? I guess on some level, yeah.

Is it the business of the gov't? HELL NO!

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I do not know, but are you claiming that the vast majority of copyright infringement w/ music is in loss-less audio formats? If so, then it really could be a situation of perfect copies. If it isn't in a loss-less format, then there is definitely going to be degradation from the original.

A better way to put it is it gets copied once into a lossy format, but additional copies are perfect copies of that. You don't continue to lose quality after the first copy.

But lots of pirated movies, for example, are perfect rips from the original DVD, and there is nothing stopping pirates from ripping perfect copies of CDs. Most just chose to go with low bit-rate MP3 for size convenience.

[molson]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

That being: If I am an artist and I paint a famous painting and then stand on the street corner handing out photo copies, can I be upset if someone copies and freely distributes one of my copies? To me this is what radio does and why I think many people have a disassociation with file downloading and theft.

They can freely distribute your copies all they want. But they can't make copies of your work - that right belongs solely to you. Of course, if you could care less, nobody's going to get in any trouble.

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

A more interesting question to me is, what about the music that would never be purchased? An example "American Pie" (The Don McClean song not the movie) is an American classic and one I have a "pirated" copy of on my MP3 player, however would never in a million years have paid even $.99 for it(and I can assure you its not the only one), have I harmed anyone?

You individually, probably not. But a billion downloads a day, that will hurt the entertainment industry and the entire economy. Even if nobody would ever pay for that song otherwise - it creates a culture where stealing is OK, and if you want something, you feel you're entitled to have it (there have already been more than a million downloads of the Wolverine movie).

Technotainment on Variety.com

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I think the intellectual property argument is weak at best since MOST artists make 80% of their income off concert and merchandise sales, as a result it CAN be argued that pirates help promote the artist.

There's no doubt pirates can help promote the artist. That's the artist's call though, not the customer's. If the artists think that lots of people getting free stuff will help them out - they can give away lots of free stuff. Companies do this all the time. But if the artists DON'T want to give away mass free stuff, it's a silly argument to say that it's actually good for them. That's THEIR call. I mean, why in any universe should that be the decision of the customer, that sums of the sense of entitlement very well.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

Finally, there was plenty of great works created before the concept of copyright law was even considered. The problem for thieves was that replication of a statue, book, or other such work often was more difficult than just snatching the original. As reproduction of works becomes easier, laws have changed. If it takes criminal courts to stop piracy, I would prefer that over just saying content creators are screwed, and need to go to great lengths to protect their work in addition to its original creation.

Here I would disagree. For centuries artists had no legal claim to their work. Live performance was often copied and claimed as another individual's work. The song or bit wasn't what separated performers, but the virtuosity of the performer. Only in the twentieth century when previously live performances could be recorded and sold did a singer or actor have any hope of making money on the text/music.

That's one of the reasons I'm torn on this. As an actor/director I feel a great sense of ownership to my work, but I also understand that the distribution of other work inspires my own. Also, the means of protecting the artist has more often been a way of shifting the profits from the artist to the producer.

[Raiders Army]

I was reading the NY Times Editorial on the possible end of paper news and was reminded of this thread. In a way I wonder how much difference there is between downloading copyrighted music illegally and cutting and pasting news (much like I did in the first post of the thread). Somebody went out there and had to get the information for the article and the newspaper (or whatever media source) had to pay that person to write it, pay for the servers, etc.

[SirFozzie]

Well, in the US, it's strictly civil, overseas it's criminal. The RIAA wanted it to be criminal (as so to push the investigating costs to the Department of Justice, while they would get the settlements), but it's not yet.. we haven't gotten that far.. yet.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I was reading the NY Times Editorial on the possible end of paper news and was reminded of this thread. In a way I wonder how much difference there is between downloading copyrighted music illegally and cutting and pasting news (much like I did in the first post of the thread). Somebody went out there and had to get the information for the article and the newspaper (or whatever media source) had to pay that person to write it, pay for the servers, etc.

The issue for newspapers is advertising. No one has been able to come up with an online model that makes anywhere near as much in ad revenue as newspapers used to. It may deny them a slight amount of ad revenue, but even sending everyone to their site won't equal the ad revenue from paper copies.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

But lots of pirated movies, for example, are perfect rips from the original DVD, and there is nothing stopping pirates from ripping perfect copies of CDs. Most just chose to go with low bit-rate MP3 for size convenience.

So, if you simply choose to degrade the quality out of convenience, rather than lack of options, you are guilty of making a perfect copy? If you lack the technology to even have a chance at a perfect copy, you're doing alright?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

If the artists think that lots of people getting free stuff will help them out - they can give away lots of free stuff.

That is not entirely true. There have been artists out there who have had DMCA notices served on them by the record label.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Well, in the US, it's strictly civil, overseas it's criminal. The RIAA wanted it to be criminal (as so to push the investigating costs to the Department of Justice, while they would get the settlements), but it's not yet.. we haven't gotten that far.. yet.

Are you sure? Perhaps you should take a closer look at both the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act).

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The issue for newspapers is advertising. No one has been able to come up with an online model that makes anywhere near as much in ad revenue as newspapers used to. It may deny them a slight amount of ad revenue, but even sending everyone to their site won't equal the ad revenue from paper copies.

Understood, but I guess what I was getting at was how much difference in terms of theft is there between cutting and pasting an article and illegally acquiring music?

[Danny]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Understood, but I guess what I was getting at was how much difference in terms of theft is there between cutting and pasting an article and illegally acquiring music?

I think this is the problem with making copyright theft a criminal offense. I'm not debating it morally, but making it criminal could be a slippery slope. What you post above is copyright violation. Frankly, I don't have faith in the government to properly assert whether one form of copyright violation should be a criminal offense or not.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

So, if you simply choose to degrade the quality out of convenience, rather than lack of options, you are guilty of making a perfect copy? If you lack the technology to even have a chance at a perfect copy, you're doing alright?

The point was that before, every copy made kept degrading the quality. This is not true anymore, and any degradation is the choice of the person making the copy.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

A more interesting question to me is, what about the music that would never be purchased? An example "American Pie" (The Don McClean song not the movie) is an American classic and one I have a "pirated" copy of on my MP3 player, however would never in a million years have paid even $.99 for it(and I can assure you its not the only one), have I harmed anyone?

My big stink with this has been that if you were talking about a video game, a fair chunk of those who steal it in this manner then call asking for tech support. Or as seen in the Demigod issue, flood the servers blocking out legitimate customers. In those cases, yes you are harming folks.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The point was that before, every copy made kept degrading the quality. This is not true anymore, and any degradation is the choice of the person making the copy.

So therefore it must become a criminal act?

[SportsDino]

Like I said at the very start, every argument comes down to "wanhhh, but I want, want, want it!".

Every one of these fallacious arguments can be applied to another crime that everyone will acknowledge is a wrong thing to do. Copyright has become a 'special' case jsut because so many people have done it they think it has to get a special status. Unfortunately, this was inevitable, back when I started this whole stance the internet was still fairly primitive. All the arguments were around how the numbers would be small, the quality and bandwidth would turn people off, the conversion rates of pirates into sales would be huge. Every single one of those went exactly how I thought it would years ago, and the consequences panned out about the same:

- Piracy has grown in numbers dramatically, you are now considered the exception if you don't think it is okay.

- Bandwidth has grown massively, and the ability to copy at high quality improved, and the ability to transmit efficiently has improved. So the 'bad copy' argument is already dead, and if not it will be in a couple years as everyone is on the giant GB measured pipe.

- Conversion rates of pirates are still low. So low that the whole 'there isn't enough data' bullshit you keep spouting should actually be applied to the theory of piracy leading to sales, not the other way around.

As for the consequences:

- Companies would eventually take it seriously and increase efforts to attack pirates. Check.

- Some companies would crunch the numbers and find a way to make a profit off it as a business. Check.

- Pricing and profits of those businesses will be under a lot of downward pressure due to their 'free competition', and the supposed morality of pirates will make the transition to paying for something that 'used to be free' slow. Check (in my opinion).

You are not entitled to luxury goods, like music, books, movies, and so on. If they don't sell it in Korea, tough. If they don't provide it through the channel you want, at the price you want, tough. If you get thrown in jail when you pursue your other options (theft), tough.

Stealing material is not a market force, it is a security cost. Pirates are why we are seeing terrible DRM software that makes paying customers incapable of using a product many times. Pirates are why software companies need to have a lawyer available to file takedown requests all the time. Pirates are the simplest example of a free loader in economics, there are half a million papers you could read about how they impact systems in a negative fashion (in or out of the field of intellectual property).

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

So therefore it must become a criminal act?

No, because the ease with which you can make high quality copies has turned copyright from "I printed and sold a few books I didn't have the rights to" to "I stole that album/game/movie before the public could buy it and distributed it for free across the globe". The amount of damage you can do is much greater now.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

Like I said at the very start, every argument comes down to "wanhhh, but I want, want, want it!".

Every one of these fallacious arguments can be applied to another crime that everyone will acknowledge is a wrong thing to do. Copyright has become a 'special' case jsut because so many people have done it they think it has to get a special status. Unfortunately, this was inevitable, back when I started this whole stance the internet was still fairly primitive. All the arguments were around how the numbers would be small, the quality and bandwidth would turn people off, the conversion rates of pirates into sales would be huge. Every single one of those went exactly how I thought it would years ago, and the consequences panned out about the same:

- Piracy has grown in numbers dramatically, you are now considered the exception if you don't think it is okay.

- Bandwidth has grown massively, and the ability to copy at high quality improved, and the ability to transmit efficiently has improved. So the 'bad copy' argument is already dead, and if not it will be in a couple years as everyone is on the giant GB measured pipe.

- Conversion rates of pirates are still low. So low that the whole 'there isn't enough data' bullshit you keep spouting should actually be applied to the theory of piracy leading to sales, not the other way around.

As for the consequences:

- Companies would eventually take it seriously and increase efforts to attack pirates. Check.

- Some companies would crunch the numbers and find a way to make a profit off it as a business. Check.

- Pricing and profits of those businesses will be under a lot of downward pressure due to their 'free competition', and the supposed morality of pirates will make the transition to paying for something that 'used to be free' slow. Check (in my opinion).

You are not entitled to luxury goods, like music, books, movies, and so on. If they don't sell it in Korea, tough. If they don't provide it through the channel you want, at the price you want, tough. If you get thrown in jail when you pursue your other options (theft), tough.

Stealing material is not a market force, it is a security cost. Pirates are why we are seeing terrible DRM software that makes paying customers incapable of using a product many times. Pirates are why software companies need to have a lawyer available to file takedown requests all the time. Pirates are the simplest example of a free loader in economics, there are half a million papers you could read about how they impact systems in a negative fashion (in or out of the field of intellectual property).

And this comes down to you wanting the market to act the way you expect it should based on your morals. Its not working that way so instead of destroying your customer base and getting bad PR more time should be spent finding out ways to get people to want to pay for your goods rather than finding ways to punish those that don't.

Best Buy keeps getting brought up comparing digital theft to physical theft, but if best buy had a problem with people stealing their goods do you think they would put in security measures that would make people uncomfortable going into their store, hope that the police just fix everything for them, or would they attempt to find some non-intrusive security measures?

[SportsDino]

What penalty would you assign to someone who leaked some movie prior to release and is watched by millions of people (say piracy of movies becomes as popular as music)... and they decide not to buy a ticket for it now?

Say only ten percent are determined to actually willing to go see the movie if they didn't get that preview. So 100,000 tickets multipled by what, $5 a generous ticket price these days... are you saying the only remedy should be a civil suit for $500,000? That will probably take the pirate, likely some half-assed college student, about 30 to 40 years to payoff?

Oh, and put the burden of proof on finding said pirate on the movie company to begin with... like they have an investigation arm that can track the entire internet and locate the pirates. And have them do it for every movie they release, and so on...

The public can criminalize anything it wants to, see example A marijuana, at some point it comes down to a public policy decision that was made by the government for some reason in the public interest.

It seems you want to argue that it is not in the public interest to pursue this crime through criminal courts. In that case, prove it. Show me a good, ethical reason, that it is not in the public interest to protect copyright. "What about the poor itsy bitsy pirates, and sticking it to those big meanie music men!" is not good enough, I'll let you know in advance. Rooting for the underdog is not particularly an ethical question, it might just feel good (like getting away with a bank robbery scott-free would probably feel good).

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

The public can criminalize anything it wants to, see example A marijuana, at some point it comes down to a public policy decision that was made by the government for some reason in the public interest.

Way off topic, but this is a really bad example for proving your point. The criminalization of marijuana had everything to do with the government (actually a very small number of people in the gov't) enforcing their morals on the American people for their own gains.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Very side-point, because I agree with most of what SportsDino and others have been saying, but anyone who doesn't go see the Wolverine movie based on the leak is a moron. I didn't pirate it, but was curious to see a small video of what it looked like and it was just ridiculous. Most visual effects were missing, and a lot of the time it just looked silly.

[SportsDino]

Best Buy already has enough bad policies, but if 'everyone' started yanking DVDs off the shelves instead of paying for them... I am pretty sure after the first million they would get pissed off enough to put in even draconian measures.

You are bringing up the whole 'piracy as a market force' debate which I've battled before, but that comes down to "you cannot compete with free". It is simply impossible. Like I said before, there are 99% morons out there, and 1% creators... so by default the market is 'gimme gimme, I'm a selfish turd, I want it and I can get it without spending my money, so its mine, fuck you nerd!'. The only thing stopping that mob is the law, I think piracy among everything else in our modern society shows that the morale compass often is ignored in favor of the selfish ego.

This is not a market, if you had even a hint of economic knowledge I'd bother to go down the path of how looters and free loaders completely devestate market economies. A market implies trade, this is not trade, it is theft, I don't see why fools can't understand that. If I could steal the physical fruits of your labor, I would be exactly the same as a pirate (although you guys say because its a copy that its not stealing). If you want to go even more abstract, we could apply some variant of 'tragedy of the commons' to the problem, and show similar damage to the inventor, namely that the faster a unique contribution is diluted without profit to the creator, that incentive or ability to create declines rapidly.

In all of these cases, it is not 'market forces' that causes the situation to resolve. It is the creation of an external force to enforce laws that ban those other behaviors. The closest we get to economic forces in all of this is that the original creator eventually starts to say "I'm losing so much money due to this, I need help".

You are acting like they should change their distribution model to serve your whim. Guess what, they ARE doing that, and the statistics support that it is not enough. Yes, they are tapping new markets, but the core problems are still there and rampant, and most evidence indicates that they are leaving profit on the table because of the unique problems of market share that piracy introduces (reducing the rate of growth of those solutions until they developed hardware/software integration, like iPhone/iTunes, which gave them a competitive advantage over pirate options).

It also cost them massive amounts of money to set up those systems, not to mention quite some time figuring out how to pay the artists, which pirate systems obviously didn't need to do.

All of that, and piracy is still a massive force. It resides OUTSIDE the market, quit acting like it is noble or even tolerable. It is like me going to your house, stealing all your stuff, and telling you after the fact "And let that be an incentive to you jackass to buy a better lock for your door!". Do you want to make that a civil matter only and see how far the crime wave goes? Or would you be happy to have the cops bust me?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

Like I said at the very start, every argument comes down to "wanhhh, but I want, want, want it!".

Not from me, but since you keep repeating this mantra you must somehow hope it will magically become true. When all else fails you, just start attributing false statements to others in hopes the audience will believe it is true.

Every one of these fallacious arguments can be applied to another crime that everyone will acknowledge is a wrong thing to do.

Make sure it is more apples to apples than apples to oranges and it might be more convincing.

Copyright has become a 'special' case jsut because so many people have done it they think it has to get a special status.

No. It wasn't a non-criminal event because people wanted to give it special status. It was that way because it was intended to be that way. It was determined that it wasn't the job of the government to protect business interests in a free market. It was determined that the government would provide a reasonable term of exclusive control over an item (a set number of years, broken into 2 terms) and then these items would become public domain. It would provide a venue, the courts, to resolve disputes involving your copyright. They did not offer up the power of the government as a tool for big business to enforce their private copyrights with, and I believe they had the right idea. They also limited the terms so that the public might derive benefit from our creations. I assure you that the continued expansion around copyright laws has nothing to do with the public good and has everything to do with the interest of big business to stamp out the entire concept of public domain. The evidence supports this view. For argument's sake, I would gladly accept copyright infringement becoming criminal if we could just roll back copyright terms to 28 years.

- Piracy has grown in numbers dramatically, you are now considered the exception if you don't think it is okay.

I do not believe I have said it is ok. I certainly do not think it is ok right now. You confuse my view regarding copyright enforcement as a civil activity as approval of copyright infringement. I don't know where you got it from, but you don't seem to mind making things up.

- Bandwidth has grown massively, and the ability to copy at high quality improved, and the ability to transmit efficiently has improved. So the 'bad copy' argument is already dead, and if not it will be in a couple years as everyone is on the giant GB measured pipe.

And we are still well behind what is happening in some other countries in this area.

[SportsDino]

So you want reform of copyright law? That is all well and fine, I'm all for a copyright of 28 years, and criminal court enforcement of it.

Look, I'm aware companies are nasty beasts, but at some level they are at least paying a share to the content creators, whereas mass piracy (i.e. if the trend continues to an even worst state) would make it rough on content creators. There is a difference between fighting their excesses, and arguing about whether you are allowed to attack piracy.

In my opinion the problem is people pirating stuff that is less than X years old, and every tactic that is reasonable to stop that should be pursued (in my opinion criminal enforcement being one). As for defining X years, or broadening fair use for the modern day... I'd probably fall in your camp. But that is a separate issue from whether the 'X years' is enforced as criminal.

My problem is when the 'I want it' crowd uses the 'big bad corporation' argument to support piracy. Two separate issues. It is like saying two wrongs make a right.

Say copyright was 28 years, and definitions were made more reasonable. Do you think civil courts are capable of stopping the current abuse that is occurring in an effective manner? I obviously do not.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

Say only ten percent are determined to actually willing to go see the movie if they didn't get that preview. So 100,000 tickets multipled by what, $5 a generous ticket price these days... are you saying the only remedy should be a civil suit for $500,000? That will probably take the pirate, likely some half-assed college student, about 30 to 40 years to payoff?

If the problem is lost revenue, how do they get it back by putting them in jail?

Oh, and put the burden of proof on finding said pirate on the movie company to begin with... like they have an investigation arm that can track the entire internet and locate the pirates. And have them do it for every movie they release, and so on...

Ok. So the burden of protecting their copyright is just too much. They want to outsource this to the government where the cost involved is paid, to some degree, by every person and business in the country (whether they own any copyrights or not).

The public can criminalize anything it wants to, see example A marijuana, at some point it comes down to a public policy decision that was made by the government for some reason in the public interest.

I suppose the issue here is proving it was actually in the public interest. Only a fool believes that everything the government puts into law is really in the best interest of the public at large.

It seems you want to argue that it is not in the public interest to pursue this crime through criminal courts. In that case, prove it. Show me a good, ethical reason, that it is not in the public interest to protect copyright. "What about the poor itsy bitsy pirates, and sticking it to those big meanie music men!" is not good enough, I'll let you know in advance. Rooting for the underdog is not particularly an ethical question, it might just feel good (like getting away with a bank robbery scott-free would probably feel good).

It is in the public interest to protect copyright, which is why you should be able to sue for violations of your copyrights. I never argued otherwise.

I never said anything in support of piracy. You dreamed that up.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

If the problem is lost revenue, how do they get it back by putting them in jail?

The penalty for any kind of theft involves more than restitution. None of the money lost from theft is recovered by putting people in jail. But you might prevent a lot of theft with the threat of jail. And you might prevent more theft by having thieves in jail.

I know you're concerned about the mere possibility of pirate users being put in jail, but again, that's never happened in the US, as far as I know. It's theoretically possible to get 6 months in jail for having a messy yard or a barking dog under misdemeanor nusiance statutes in most states. But if anyone ever actually got 6 months for a messy yard, it would be unconstitutionally excessive, barring extreme aggravating factors.