POPCORN TIME > Torrents made simple as Netflix?! (1 Viewer)

[Todd Andrews]

That's their decision, not yours. Can I steal a Ferrari if I conclude they are overpriced, and it not be stealing?

No it is not their decision! We as a society at any time can rightfully decide that the imaginary "property" of IP is a legal construct that no longer serves society. (A position that technology will continue to force us to consider.) IP is not in any way, shape, or form a natural inalienable right but merely a social construct. So it is the decision of "We the People" whether it exists or goes away.

And when 3-D scanners and printers are able to layer all of the materials of a Ferrari we can debate whether Ferrari was harmed in any way by those that would replicate one.

This is actually correct in the sense that copyright and IP law are merely monopolies created by our legal system for authors, artists, inventors, etc. And of course there is always a tension between the law and practical reality. But I hope you would agree that taking what is legally considered another person's revenue or right to revenue is wrong, even if you believe and hope that the existing law should be changed. I mean, statutory rape is a recent legal/social construct, too, but I doubt you are out there violating it because you think it shouldnt exist.

 

[Otis]

That's their decision, not yours. Can I steal a Ferrari if I conclude they are overpriced, and it not be stealing?

No it is not their decision! We as a society at any time can rightfully decide that the imaginary "property" of IP is a legal construct that no longer serves society. (A position that technology will continue to force us to consider.) IP is not in any way, shape, or form a natural inalienable right but merely a social construct. So it is the decision of "We the People" whether it exists or goes away.

That's an odd view. I suppose we the people can conclude, whenever we want, that property rights should change? Who's to say I should own my plot of land? Some hippie could march in here and tell me that the earth is for all of us, God didn't paint dividing lines and parcel off land, and so we all share everything. What if some subset of people just decide that is their view, and start taking over/squatting on the property of others. That ok?



If everyone took the view of the iThieves, there would no longer be any movies or music, because it wouldn't be worth dumping a hundred million dollars into a blockbuster if nobody paid for it.

 

[Otis]

That's their decision, not yours. Can I steal a Ferrari if I conclude they are overpriced, and it not be stealing?

No it is not their decision!

This is odd too. You're saying the making of a thing or provider of a service isn't allowed to decide how to price it?

I thought the idea was that a seller put a price on it, and the market would decide whether they want to pay that price or not. But in the realm of torrents, someone on the torrent board came up with the idea that since Hollywood is charging too much, we're allowed to just take stuff and it's not stealing.

It's stealing regardless of the name you give it. Again, if you're OK with that, that's fine. Nobody here is judging or telling you not to do it. We're simply calling a spade a spade.

 

[tommyGunZ]

That's their decision, not yours. Can I steal a Ferrari if I conclude they are overpriced, and it not be stealing?

No it is not their decision! We as a society at any time can rightfully decide that the imaginary "property" of IP is a legal construct that no longer serves society. (A position that technology will continue to force us to consider.) IP is not in any way, shape, or form a natural inalienable right but merely a social construct. So it is the decision of "We the People" whether it exists or goes away.

That's an odd view. I suppose we the people can conclude, whenever we want, that property rights should change? Who's to say I should own my plot of land? Some hippie could march in here and tell me that the earth is for all of us, God didn't paint dividing lines and parcel off land, and so we all share everything. What if some subset of people just decide that is their view, and start taking over/squatting on the property of others. That ok?



If everyone took the view of the iThieves, there would no longer be any movies or music, because it wouldn't be worth dumping a hundred million dollars into a blockbuster if nobody paid for it.

I think we could survive w/o Men In Black 6. And the music model is already moving to an emphasis on live performances as record sales continue to decline. If that means no more Drakes, and more folks who can actually perform live, we'll survive.

Some of the vilification of current IP protections are over the top, but lets be honest - there needs to be serious reform. Current IP protections aren't sustainable nor are they efficient.

 

[cstu]

It's stealing regardless of the name you give it. Again, if you're OK with that, that's fine. Nobody here is judging or telling you not to do it. We're simply calling a spade a spade.
the realm of torrents, someone on the torrent board came up with the idea that since Hollywood is charging too much, we're allowed to just take stuff and it's not stealing.

Damn Otis, you simply refuse to get it - even after MT chimed in.

There are a lot of things it is but it's not stealing.

 

[NutterButter]

That's their decision, not yours. Can I steal a Ferrari if I conclude they are overpriced, and it not be stealing?

No it is not their decision! We as a society at any time can rightfully decide that the imaginary "property" of IP is a legal construct that no longer serves society. (A position that technology will continue to force us to consider.) IP is not in any way, shape, or form a natural inalienable right but merely a social construct. So it is the decision of "We the People" whether it exists or goes away.

That's an odd view. I suppose we the people can conclude, whenever we want, that property rights should change? Who's to say I should own my plot of land? Some hippie could march in here and tell me that the earth is for all of us, God didn't paint dividing lines and parcel off land, and so we all share everything. What if some subset of people just decide that is their view, and start taking over/squatting on the property of others. That ok?



If everyone took the view of the iThieves, there would no longer be any movies or music, because it wouldn't be worth dumping a hundred million dollars into a blockbuster if nobody paid for it.

That's not guaranteed. If demands goes down in any industry, you either adjust the price or fold up shop. Considering there's still a lot of people making a pretty big buck out there in movies and music there's definitely room for a price adjustment.

 

[tonydead]

Your purposefully vague nonanswer schtick is a lame way for you hide the fact that you dont know what you are talking about. Are you saying that you know why US Attorneys and the FBI dont bring charges against torrents? If so, please explain, I would love to hear that from you.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Again, besides trying to answer your wacko questions, the only point I'm trying to make is that it's not stealing.

 

[hxperson]

Given all this debate, I feel its appropriate to link one of my favorite discussions on media piracy

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Your purposefully vague nonanswer schtick is a lame way for you hide the fact that you dont know what you are talking about. Are you saying that you know why US Attorneys and the FBI dont bring charges against torrents? If so, please explain, I would love to hear that from you.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Again, besides trying to answer your wacko questions, the only point I'm trying to make is that it's not stealing.

No, you keep saying something about people not being prosecuted for criminal infringement without stating why.

 

[tonydead]

Your purposefully vague nonanswer schtick is a lame way for you hide the fact that you dont know what you are talking about. Are you saying that you know why US Attorneys and the FBI dont bring charges against torrents? If so, please explain, I would love to hear that from you.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Again, besides trying to answer your wacko questions, the only point I'm trying to make is that it's not stealing.

No, you keep saying something about people not being prosecuted for criminal infringement without stating why.

That was in response on one of HIS QUESTIONS about which might be morally superior. Asking an un related question and turning the suggested answer around asking for proof is a strawman argument. I don't give a piss about the morality of it, the fact is it's not stealing.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Your purposefully vague nonanswer schtick is a lame way for you hide the fact that you dont know what you are talking about. Are you saying that you know why US Attorneys and the FBI dont bring charges against torrents? If so, please explain, I would love to hear that from you.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Again, besides trying to answer your wacko questions, the only point I'm trying to make is that it's not stealing.

No, you keep saying something about people not being prosecuted for criminal infringement without stating why.

That was in response on one of HIS QUESTIONS about which might be morally superior. Asking an un related question and turning the suggested answer around asking for proof is a strawman argument. I don't give a piss about the morality of it, the fact is it's not stealing.

So you are saying that because one is prosecuted less than the other that is a factor...in establishing what?

 

[Chaos Commish]

True Detective true confession. As far as I know up until that HBO series I haven't illegally downloaded anything ever. Not that I have some moral high ground, just that I never bothered. I guess some old problems with malware and viruses from bad sites also scared me away from questionable activity. A month ago, I couldn't tell you what a torrent was. Seriously. Seeding? Leeching? A foreign language to me. Then my mom passed and no one in this house watches tv anymore. She watched from 8am until she went to bed with a few interruptions, but tv was her thing in her sickness. The tv in my kid's bedroom has not been turned on in 6 weeks. She lives on her Iphone and Ipad. The tv in the family room goes for days without being used for anything but occasional gaming. I'm pretty sure we haven't watched it in two weeks. The tv in my room is on every night as I scan for a ballgame or whatever, but I'm more entertained by the internet. So the satellite bill ($127) bothered me with mom gone. I started looking into cutting the cable. That led to reading about torrents. The True Detective thread was compelling. I have Showtime but not HBO. I grabbed uTorrent, bookmarked PrivateBay, and had a glorious True Detective marathon last Saturday and Sunday. Describe it however you want (theft, infringement), it was illegal and it was wrong. And I really enjoyed it, like plenty of other illegal and wrong stuff. I think those of you defending it, should probably get that much out of the way. It's wrong. You shouldn't do it. But you do. So what.

 

[Vike Me]

Given all this debate, I feel its appropriate to link one of my favorite discussions on media piracy

Well my iPod is only costing the entertainment industry about 1.2 billion dollars and only about 11,000 jobs. And I'm ok with that.

 

[JZilla]

If the entertainment industry would get its act together, we would already be paying a flat subscription to watch whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want. Torrents to me are about ease.

Theft? OK. But I wouldn't be watching most of this #### at all if it wasn't right there.

 

[drummer]

That's their decision, not yours. Can I steal a Ferrari if I conclude they are overpriced, and it not be stealing?

No it is not their decision! We as a society at any time can rightfully decide that the imaginary "property" of IP is a legal construct that no longer serves society. (A position that technology will continue to force us to consider.) IP is not in any way, shape, or form a natural inalienable right but merely a social construct. So it is the decision of "We the People" whether it exists or goes away.

That's an odd view. I suppose we the people can conclude, whenever we want, that property rights should change? Who's to say I should own my plot of land? Some hippie could march in here and tell me that the earth is for all of us, God didn't paint dividing lines and parcel off land, and so we all share everything. What if some subset of people just decide that is their view, and start taking over/squatting on the property of others. That ok?



If everyone took the view of the iThieves, there would no longer be any movies or music, because it wouldn't be worth dumping a hundred million dollars into a blockbuster if nobody paid for it.

This schtick is horrid.

 

[Slapdash]

That's their decision, not yours. Can I steal a Ferrari if I conclude they are overpriced, and it not be stealing?

No it is not their decision! We as a society at any time can rightfully decide that the imaginary "property" of IP is a legal construct that no longer serves society. (A position that technology will continue to force us to consider.) IP is not in any way, shape, or form a natural inalienable right but merely a social construct. So it is the decision of "We the People" whether it exists or goes away.

That's an odd view. I suppose we the people can conclude, whenever we want, that property rights should change? Who's to say I should own my plot of land? Some hippie could march in here and tell me that the earth is for all of us, God didn't paint dividing lines and parcel off land, and so we all share everything. What if some subset of people just decide that is their view, and start taking over/squatting on the property of others. That ok?



If everyone took the view of the iThieves, there would no longer be any movies or music, because it wouldn't be worth dumping a hundred million dollars into a blockbuster if nobody paid for it.

This schtick is horrid.

It isn't schtick, it is self interest.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Your purposefully vague nonanswer schtick is a lame way for you hide the fact that you dont know what you are talking about. Are you saying that you know why US Attorneys and the FBI dont bring charges against torrents? If so, please explain, I would love to hear that from you.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Again, besides trying to answer your wacko questions, the only point I'm trying to make is that it's not stealing.

No, you keep saying something about people not being prosecuted for criminal infringement without stating why.

That was in response on one of HIS QUESTIONS about which might be morally superior. Asking an un related question and turning the suggested answer around asking for proof is a strawman argument. I don't give a piss about the morality of it, the fact is it's not stealing.

That is bs. I didnt start my questioning of you until you had mentioned lack of prosecution a number of times and also claimed that there is some huge gray area in copyright law as it relates to digital media, which you still havent explained. Now you are trying to claim all you ever said was copyright infringement isnt stealing, which no one really cares about.

You sound like someone who knows enough about copyright to be harmful, but why cant you just answer my simple questions about your own vague statements?

 

[drummer]

That's their decision, not yours. Can I steal a Ferrari if I conclude they are overpriced, and it not be stealing?

No it is not their decision! We as a society at any time can rightfully decide that the imaginary "property" of IP is a legal construct that no longer serves society. (A position that technology will continue to force us to consider.) IP is not in any way, shape, or form a natural inalienable right but merely a social construct. So it is the decision of "We the People" whether it exists or goes away.

That's an odd view. I suppose we the people can conclude, whenever we want, that property rights should change? Who's to say I should own my plot of land? Some hippie could march in here and tell me that the earth is for all of us, God didn't paint dividing lines and parcel off land, and so we all share everything. What if some subset of people just decide that is their view, and start taking over/squatting on the property of others. That ok?



If everyone took the view of the iThieves, there would no longer be any movies or music, because it wouldn't be worth dumping a hundred million dollars into a blockbuster if nobody paid for it.

This schtick is horrid.

It isn't schtick, it is self interest.

That's even worse.

 

[Todd Andrews]

If the entertainment industry would get its act together, we would already be paying a flat subscription to watch whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want. Torrents to me are about ease.

Theft? OK. But I wouldn't be watching most of this #### at all if it wasn't right there.

Fair enough. Ease of access is why most people do it. It is just hilarious that many of them cant be intellectually honest and admit it is stealing, illegal and wrong, and damages the content creation industries whose output they are enjoying for free.

 

[drummer]

If the entertainment industry would get its act together, we would already be paying a flat subscription to watch whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want. Torrents to me are about ease.

Theft? OK. But I wouldn't be watching most of this #### at all if it wasn't right there.

Fair enough. Ease of access is why most people do it. It is just hilarious that many of them cant be intellectually honest and admit it is stealing, illegal and wrong, and damages the content creation industries whose output they are enjoying for free.

You're really against open internet, aren't you?

 

[Todd Andrews]

If the entertainment industry would get its act together, we would already be paying a flat subscription to watch whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want. Torrents to me are about ease.

Theft? OK. But I wouldn't be watching most of this #### at all if it wasn't right there.

Fair enough. Ease of access is why most people do it. It is just hilarious that many of them cant be intellectually honest and admit it is stealing, illegal and wrong, and damages the content creation industries whose output they are enjoying for free.

You're really against open internet, aren't you?

If you mean net neutrality, I am all for it. I even work with EFF sometimes. One can be in favor of copyright without also being in favor of SOPA.

 

[drummer]

If the entertainment industry would get its act together, we would already be paying a flat subscription to watch whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want. Torrents to me are about ease.

Theft? OK. But I wouldn't be watching most of this #### at all if it wasn't right there.

Fair enough. Ease of access is why most people do it. It is just hilarious that many of them cant be intellectually honest and admit it is stealing, illegal and wrong, and damages the content creation industries whose output they are enjoying for free.

You're really against open internet, aren't you?

If you mean net neutrality, I am all for it. I even work with EFF sometimes. One can be in favor of copyright without also being in favor of SOPA.

They already have DCMA. They can use DCMA for takedowns. You can't get a file if it isn't uploaded anywhere.

 

[Todd Andrews]

If the entertainment industry would get its act together, we would already be paying a flat subscription to watch whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want. Torrents to me are about ease.

Theft? OK. But I wouldn't be watching most of this #### at all if it wasn't right there.

Fair enough. Ease of access is why most people do it. It is just hilarious that many of them cant be intellectually honest and admit it is stealing, illegal and wrong, and damages the content creation industries whose output they are enjoying for free.

You're really against open internet, aren't you?

If you mean net neutrality, I am all for it. I even work with EFF sometimes. One can be in favor of copyright without also being in favor of SOPA.

They already have DCMA. They can use DCMA for takedowns. You can't get a file if it isn't uploaded anywhere.

I told you I was against SOPA.

 

[drummer]

If the entertainment industry would get its act together, we would already be paying a flat subscription to watch whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want. Torrents to me are about ease.

Theft? OK. But I wouldn't be watching most of this #### at all if it wasn't right there.

Fair enough. Ease of access is why most people do it. It is just hilarious that many of them cant be intellectually honest and admit it is stealing, illegal and wrong, and damages the content creation industries whose output they are enjoying for free.

You're really against open internet, aren't you?

If you mean net neutrality, I am all for it. I even work with EFF sometimes. One can be in favor of copyright without also being in favor of SOPA.

They already have DCMA. They can use DCMA for takedowns. You can't get a file if it isn't uploaded anywhere.

I told you I was against SOPA.

I know. I'm talking about the existing Digital Copyright Millennium Act.

 

[Otis]

That's their decision, not yours. Can I steal a Ferrari if I conclude they are overpriced, and it not be stealing?

No it is not their decision! We as a society at any time can rightfully decide that the imaginary "property" of IP is a legal construct that no longer serves society. (A position that technology will continue to force us to consider.) IP is not in any way, shape, or form a natural inalienable right but merely a social construct. So it is the decision of "We the People" whether it exists or goes away.

That's an odd view. I suppose we the people can conclude, whenever we want, that property rights should change? Who's to say I should own my plot of land? Some hippie could march in here and tell me that the earth is for all of us, God didn't paint dividing lines and parcel off land, and so we all share everything. What if some subset of people just decide that is their view, and start taking over/squatting on the property of others. That ok?



If everyone took the view of the iThieves, there would no longer be any movies or music, because it wouldn't be worth dumping a hundred million dollars into a blockbuster if nobody paid for it.

This schtick is horrid.

It isn't schtick, it is self interest.

It's really not. These are copyright issues. Completely unrelated to what I do.

 

[tonydead]

That was in response on one of NED RYERSON's HIS QUESTIONs about which might be morally superior. Asking an un related question and turning the suggested answer around asking for proof is a strawman argument. I don't give a piss about the morality of it, the fact is it's not stealing.

That is bs. I didnt start my questioning of you until you had mentioned lack of prosecution a number of times and also claimed that there is some huge gray area in copyright law as it relates to digital media, which you still havent explained. Now you are trying to claim all you ever said was copyright infringement isnt stealing, which no one really cares about.

You sound like someone who knows enough about copyright to be harmful, but why cant you just answer my simple questions about your own vague statements?

Sorry, fixed. Isn't the bolded exactly what the other thread is titled? And if there isn't any gray area why do we even have either thread going on here?

 

[Todd Andrews]

That was in response on one of NED RYERSON's HIS QUESTIONs about which might be morally superior. Asking an un related question and turning the suggested answer around asking for proof is a strawman argument. I don't give a piss about the morality of it, the fact is it's not stealing.

That is bs. I didnt start my questioning of you until you had mentioned lack of prosecution a number of times and also claimed that there is some huge gray area in copyright law as it relates to digital media, which you still havent explained. Now you are trying to claim all you ever said was copyright infringement isnt stealing, which no one really cares about.

You sound like someone who knows enough about copyright to be harmful, but why cant you just answer my simple questions about your own vague statements?

Sorry, fixed. Isn't the bolded exactly what the other thread is titled? And if there isn't any gray area why do we even have either thread going on here?

What is the gray area YOU referred to?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

That's their decision, not yours. Can I steal a Ferrari if I conclude they are overpriced, and it not be stealing?

No it is not their decision! We as a society at any time can rightfully decide that the imaginary "property" of IP is a legal construct that no longer serves society. (A position that technology will continue to force us to consider.) IP is not in any way, shape, or form a natural inalienable right but merely a social construct. So it is the decision of "We the People" whether it exists or goes away.

And when 3-D scanners and printers are able to layer all of the materials of a Ferrari we can debate whether Ferrari was harmed in any way by those that would replicate one.

Do you really want to live in a world with no IP at all? Truly? Do I even need to go into the ramifications that would have? (other than not being able to feed my family because it is what I do for a living)

IP might very well be a necessary evil for society in 2014, but I don't see anyone making that argument (at least until replies to this happened). Instead all we see are arguments on the morality of seeking rents.

And if your argument is that truly creative people are motivated by the same things as IP lawyers and without you guys nothing would ever be created then

 

[tonydead]

That was in response on one of NED RYERSON's HIS QUESTIONs about which might be morally superior. Asking an un related question and turning the suggested answer around asking for proof is a strawman argument. I don't give a piss about the morality of it, the fact is it's not stealing.

That is bs. I didnt start my questioning of you until you had mentioned lack of prosecution a number of times and also claimed that there is some huge gray area in copyright law as it relates to digital media, which you still havent explained. Now you are trying to claim all you ever said was copyright infringement isnt stealing, which no one really cares about.

You sound like someone who knows enough about copyright to be harmful, but why cant you just answer my simple questions about your own vague statements?

Sorry, fixed. Isn't the bolded exactly what the other thread is titled? And if there isn't any gray area why do we even have either thread going on here?

What is the gray area YOU referred to?

THE SAME! Does it irritate you when I refuse to jump on and butt rape your strawman?

 

[Slapdash]

That's their decision, not yours. Can I steal a Ferrari if I conclude they are overpriced, and it not be stealing?

No it is not their decision! We as a society at any time can rightfully decide that the imaginary "property" of IP is a legal construct that no longer serves society. (A position that technology will continue to force us to consider.) IP is not in any way, shape, or form a natural inalienable right but merely a social construct. So it is the decision of "We the People" whether it exists or goes away.

That's an odd view. I suppose we the people can conclude, whenever we want, that property rights should change? Who's to say I should own my plot of land? Some hippie could march in here and tell me that the earth is for all of us, God didn't paint dividing lines and parcel off land, and so we all share everything. What if some subset of people just decide that is their view, and start taking over/squatting on the property of others. That ok?



If everyone took the view of the iThieves, there would no longer be any movies or music, because it wouldn't be worth dumping a hundred million dollars into a blockbuster if nobody paid for it.

This schtick is horrid.

It isn't schtick, it is self interest.

It's really not. These are copyright issues. Completely unrelated to what I do.

You still work on IP, no? Copyright is a subset.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

That's their decision, not yours. Can I steal a Ferrari if I conclude they are overpriced, and it not be stealing?

No it is not their decision! We as a society at any time can rightfully decide that the imaginary "property" of IP is a legal construct that no longer serves society. (A position that technology will continue to force us to consider.) IP is not in any way, shape, or form a natural inalienable right but merely a social construct. So it is the decision of "We the People" whether it exists or goes away.

And when 3-D scanners and printers are able to layer all of the materials of a Ferrari we can debate whether Ferrari was harmed in any way by those that would replicate one.

This is actually correct in the sense that copyright and IP law are merely monopolies created by our legal system for authors, artists, inventors, etc. And of course there is always a tension between the law and practical reality. But I hope you would agree that taking what is legally considered another person's revenue or right to revenue is wrong, even if you believe and hope that the existing law should be changed. I mean, statutory rape is a recent legal/social construct, too, but I doubt you are out there violating it because you think it shouldnt exist.

I believe that the function of our legal system, of laws to pursue policies that best benefits society (within the limiting framework of maintaining our "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness", and the Locke version property rights). I don't believe that this system should be trying to figure out what is "right or wrong". Most often what is "right" will be best for the society anyway, even if we can't agree on it.But in pursuing policies that best benefit society these policies must also be feasible. It is most likely in society's best interest to "clamp down" on drug usage, but drug prohibition laws are pretty much counter productive. We shouldn't have them. Lots of people believe that abortion is immoral and also have this false belief that prohibition of abortion can be effective. But international study after international study has shown that prohibition is statistically irrelevant to abortion rates.

So for copyrights and patents I think it is just fine for society to constantly seek a balance between distributing ideas as widely as possible to inspire the next great artist, the next great inventor against the need for existing creative and innovative people to make enough of a living that they create rather find a home in a cube farm - or become an IP lawyer. That probably means in 2014 it is in the best interest of society as a whole for the limited monopolies mentioned in the Constitution. Probably! But if technology makes this infeasible we shouldn't be pursuing the "fool's errand" no matter what the short term ramifications.

In any case it is clear that it is time for this debate to move beyond debating whether the "pirates" of today have any defense for their illegal actions. It is time to debate whether patenting every single trivial iterative idea is benefiting society. Whether the effectively permanent monopolies on the copyright side is allowing the next generation of creators be inspired by the current. Maybe what we have today is exactly the correct balance and it completely cost effective to enforce. But I doubt it and this debate should be constant. Yet it is nowhere other than protecting Hollywood's interest versus internet providers.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

That's their decision, not yours. Can I steal a Ferrari if I conclude they are overpriced, and it not be stealing?

No it is not their decision!

This is odd too. You're saying the making of a thing or provider of a service isn't allowed to decide how to price it?

I thought the idea was that a seller put a price on it, and the market would decide whether they want to pay that price or not. But in the realm of torrents, someone on the torrent board came up with the idea that since Hollywood is charging too much, we're allowed to just take stuff and it's not stealing.

It's stealing regardless of the name you give it. Again, if you're OK with that, that's fine. Nobody here is judging or telling you not to do it. We're simply calling a spade a spade.

I don't torrent.

 

[Johnny Rock]

That's their decision, not yours. Can I steal a Ferrari if I conclude they are overpriced, and it not be stealing?

No it is not their decision! We as a society at any time can rightfully decide that the imaginary "property" of IP is a legal construct that no longer serves society. (A position that technology will continue to force us to consider.) IP is not in any way, shape, or form a natural inalienable right but merely a social construct. So it is the decision of "We the People" whether it exists or goes away.

That's an odd view. I suppose we the people can conclude, whenever we want, that property rights should change? Who's to say I should own my plot of land? Some hippie could march in here and tell me that the earth is for all of us, God didn't paint dividing lines and parcel off land, and so we all share everything. What if some subset of people just decide that is their view, and start taking over/squatting on the property of others. That ok?



If everyone took the view of the iThieves, there would no longer be any movies or music, because it wouldn't be worth dumping a hundred million dollars into a blockbuster if nobody paid for it.

This schtick is horrid.

It isn't schtick, it is self interest.

Nobody has called out the irony of this post? Then I will.

 

[Slapdash]

That's their decision, not yours. Can I steal a Ferrari if I conclude they are overpriced, and it not be stealing?

No it is not their decision! We as a society at any time can rightfully decide that the imaginary "property" of IP is a legal construct that no longer serves society. (A position that technology will continue to force us to consider.) IP is not in any way, shape, or form a natural inalienable right but merely a social construct. So it is the decision of "We the People" whether it exists or goes away.

That's an odd view. I suppose we the people can conclude, whenever we want, that property rights should change? Who's to say I should own my plot of land? Some hippie could march in here and tell me that the earth is for all of us, God didn't paint dividing lines and parcel off land, and so we all share everything. What if some subset of people just decide that is their view, and start taking over/squatting on the property of others. That ok?



If everyone took the view of the iThieves, there would no longer be any movies or music, because it wouldn't be worth dumping a hundred million dollars into a blockbuster if nobody paid for it.

This schtick is horrid.

It isn't schtick, it is self interest.

Nobody has called out the irony of this post? Then I will.

Maybe you could point it out then.

 

[Maelstrom]

Here is how I look at it. Yes, it is against the law to download things you did not pay for. But if no one protests against the companies that are not willing to innovate, and are so large that they stifle other companies ability to innovate in this arena, then we will never progress to better ways of consuming content. Example was already used in this thread, but before Spotify was viable and could innovate in the music space, Napster had to be around to show the music execs that people were not satisfied with the status quo.

Similarly with TBP and torrents for movies - movie execs don't get it. I can get a better quality experience downloading a TV show or movie from a torrent over watching it in some of the "acceptable" formats that are currently provided. At some point, a company will be born that will deliver movies/TV in a better way (maybe it's Netflix) and people will be willing to pay AND tv/movie execs will be willing to license their material to them because they have been shown that their current model is not viable anymore.

There is so much room for technical innovation in the delivery of commercial video (tv/movies/etc) to people these days, and the companies are worried about it cutting into their profit margin because they are not in a position to take advantage of it. So they take to trying to force technology to slow down, stop advancing and stop innovating by way of the courts, their bully power as monopolies and we should all be upset with them for that.

My message to the large corporations - make it easy and convenient for me to watch your video in the fashion, manner and timing that I want to watch it in, at a fair price, and I'll happily pay that price. They are not there yet. (FYI, although I believe this, I don't actually torrent very often, I generally try to stick to the legal methods of watching video when possible and pay for Cable/Netflix/etc as well.)

I totally feel the same way about speed limits, which is why I cant drive 55.

Quite a few expressway speed limits are 70 instead of 55 because enough people didn't drive 55.

 

[Maelstrom]

That's their decision, not yours. Can I steal a Ferrari if I conclude they are overpriced, and it not be stealing?

No it is not their decision! We as a society at any time can rightfully decide that the imaginary "property" of IP is a legal construct that no longer serves society. (A position that technology will continue to force us to consider.) IP is not in any way, shape, or form a natural inalienable right but merely a social construct. So it is the decision of "We the People" whether it exists or goes away.

And when 3-D scanners and printers are able to layer all of the materials of a Ferrari we can debate whether Ferrari was harmed in any way by those that would replicate one.

Do you really want to live in a world with no IP at all? Truly? Do I even need to go into the ramifications that would have? (other than not being able to feed my family because it is what I do for a living)

Arguing against the current system is not the same as saying there should not be IP at all. Yes, we could decide to go all the way to getting rid of it, but we could start by reducing the length of IP and the ability to renew it after it (should) expire. (More specifically copyright, but I think the point still stands.)

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

That's an odd view. I suppose we the people can conclude, whenever we want, that property rights should change? Who's to say I should own my plot of land? Some hippie could march in here and tell me that the earth is for all of us, God didn't paint dividing lines and parcel off land, and so we all share everything. What if some subset of people just decide that is their view, and start taking over/squatting on the property of others. That ok?



If everyone took the view of the iThieves, there would no longer be any movies or music, because it wouldn't be worth dumping a hundred million dollars into a blockbuster if nobody paid for it.

Sorry! The property involved here is completely a legal construct. Otherwise there is no property. Real things like the land your home is on is and has always been different. But even with real property if it benefits society to take your land society will take your land (within a few limits).And your last sentence is simply wrong. Well maybe hundred million blockbusters would go away, but there would be plenty of diverse entertainment. Creative people are driven to create. There is more than one option to prevent artists from starving.

 

[drummer]

That's an odd view. I suppose we the people can conclude, whenever we want, that property rights should change? Who's to say I should own my plot of land? Some hippie could march in here and tell me that the earth is for all of us, God didn't paint dividing lines and parcel off land, and so we all share everything. What if some subset of people just decide that is their view, and start taking over/squatting on the property of others. That ok?



If everyone took the view of the iThieves, there would no longer be any movies or music, because it wouldn't be worth dumping a hundred million dollars into a blockbuster if nobody paid for it.

Sorry! The property involved here is completely a legal construct. Otherwise there is no property. Real things like the land your home is on is and has always been different. But even with real property if it benefits society to take your land society will take your land (within a few limits).And your last sentence is simply wrong. Well maybe hundred million blockbusters would go away, but there would be plenty of diverse entertainment. Creative people are driven to create. There is more than one option to prevent artists from starving.

"Creative" artists like Tyler Perry aren't starving either:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2215285/business?ref_=tt_dt_bus

Maybe because nobody downloads his brand of comedy.

 

[Johnny Rock]

I agree 100% that allowing patents on every little iterative is bad for America. Too many vague, incremental improvements getting pushed through. See also the Patent Troll thread.

But making a movie, pricing it how you please and trying to make money off it needs to be protected. BFS mentioned "effectively permanent monopolies on the copyright side." While it can be debated how long a copyright on a protected work should last, surely the length of time should extend AT LEAST until the movie is ACTUALLY RELEASED, because we all know sometimes movies are pirated before that.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

But making a movie, pricing it how you please and trying to make money off it needs to be protected. BFS mentioned "effectively permanent monopolies on the copyright side." While it can be debated how long a copyright on a protected work should last, surely the length of time should extend AT LEAST until the movie is ACTUALLY RELEASED, because we all know sometimes movies are pirated before that.

Why is this a given and not up for evidence based, cost-benefit analysis?

 

[drummer]

But making a movie, pricing it how you please and trying to make money off it needs to be protected. BFS mentioned "effectively permanent monopolies on the copyright side." While it can be debated how long a copyright on a protected work should last, surely the length of time should extend AT LEAST until the movie is ACTUALLY RELEASED, because we all know sometimes movies are pirated before that.

Why is this a given and not up for evidence based, cost-benefit analysis?

Opening weekend box office totals should reflect some numbers:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1905041/business?ref_=tt_dt_bus

 

[Todd Andrews]

That was in response on one of NED RYERSON's HIS QUESTIONs about which might be morally superior. Asking an un related question and turning the suggested answer around asking for proof is a strawman argument. I don't give a piss about the morality of it, the fact is it's not stealing.

That is bs. I didnt start my questioning of you until you had mentioned lack of prosecution a number of times and also claimed that there is some huge gray area in copyright law as it relates to digital media, which you still havent explained. Now you are trying to claim all you ever said was copyright infringement isnt stealing, which no one really cares about.

You sound like someone who knows enough about copyright to be harmful, but why cant you just answer my simple questions about your own vague statements?

Sorry, fixed. Isn't the bolded exactly what the other thread is titled? And if there isn't any gray area why do we even have either thread going on here?

What is the gray area YOU referred to?

THE SAME! Does it irritate you when I refuse to jump on and butt rape your strawman?

No, it doesnt irritate me. It just reaffirms you dont know about copyright law.

 

[Todd Andrews]

That's their decision, not yours. Can I steal a Ferrari if I conclude they are overpriced, and it not be stealing?

No it is not their decision! We as a society at any time can rightfully decide that the imaginary "property" of IP is a legal construct that no longer serves society. (A position that technology will continue to force us to consider.) IP is not in any way, shape, or form a natural inalienable right but merely a social construct. So it is the decision of "We the People" whether it exists or goes away.

And when 3-D scanners and printers are able to layer all of the materials of a Ferrari we can debate whether Ferrari was harmed in any way by those that would replicate one.

This is actually correct in the sense that copyright and IP law are merely monopolies created by our legal system for authors, artists, inventors, etc. And of course there is always a tension between the law and practical reality. But I hope you would agree that taking what is legally considered another person's revenue or right to revenue is wrong, even if you believe and hope that the existing law should be changed. I mean, statutory rape is a recent legal/social construct, too, but I doubt you are out there violating it because you think it shouldnt exist.

I believe that the function of our legal system, of laws to pursue policies that best benefits society (within the limiting framework of maintaining our "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness", and the Locke version property rights). I don't believe that this system should be trying to figure out what is "right or wrong". Most often what is "right" will be best for the society anyway, even if we can't agree on it.But in pursuing policies that best benefit society these policies must also be feasible. It is most likely in society's best interest to "clamp down" on drug usage, but drug prohibition laws are pretty much counter productive. We shouldn't have them. Lots of people believe that abortion is immoral and also have this false belief that prohibition of abortion can be effective. But international study after international study has shown that prohibition is statistically irrelevant to abortion rates.

So for copyrights and patents I think it is just fine for society to constantly seek a balance between distributing ideas as widely as possible to inspire the next great artist, the next great inventor against the need for existing creative and innovative people to make enough of a living that they create rather find a home in a cube farm - or become an IP lawyer. That probably means in 2014 it is in the best interest of society as a whole for the limited monopolies mentioned in the Constitution. Probably! But if technology makes this infeasible we shouldn't be pursuing the "fool's errand" no matter what the short term ramifications.

In any case it is clear that it is time for this debate to move beyond debating whether the "pirates" of today have any defense for their illegal actions. It is time to debate whether patenting every single trivial iterative idea is benefiting society. Whether the effectively permanent monopolies on the copyright side is allowing the next generation of creators be inspired by the current. Maybe what we have today is exactly the correct balance and it completely cost effective to enforce. But I doubt it and this debate should be constant. Yet it is nowhere other than protecting Hollywood's interest versus internet providers.

Much of that makes sense. And for what its worth, I dont think todays balance in copyright law is correct. I thing the Sonny Bono Disney Cash Money Act was a very bad idea. I do note that you correctly referenced the inclusion by the founding fathers of the patent and copyright clause in the body of the Constitution. That means copyright was important foundational law in the US, for one reason because most of the body of the Constitution is about the structure of government and not substantive laws.

 

[drummer]

Blaming the end user is a useless exercise. They benefit more from the end user than the end user harms them.

 

[Johnny Rock]

But making a movie, pricing it how you please and trying to make money off it needs to be protected. BFS mentioned "effectively permanent monopolies on the copyright side." While it can be debated how long a copyright on a protected work should last, surely the length of time should extend AT LEAST until the movie is ACTUALLY RELEASED, because we all know sometimes movies are pirated before that.

Why is this a given and not up for evidence based, cost-benefit analysis?

Are you saying a new movie should be released in the public domain before the copyright holder has a protected period to attempt to profit monetarily?

 

[jamny]

I agree with Todd Andrews. I don't think I ever posted that before so I felt I should take the opportunity to do so.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I agree with Todd Andrews. I don't think I ever posted that before so I felt I should take the opportunity to do so.

That shows that you may be the smartest poster of all.

 

[jamny]

I agree with Todd Andrews. I don't think I ever posted that before so I felt I should take the opportunity to do so.

That shows that you may be the smartest poster of all.

Nah, I'm still a KooK

 

[Sinn Fein]

Hmmm. Now I can't get to the fire website. Damn authorities.

 

[Slapdash]

Hmmm. Now I can't get to the fire website. Damn authorities.

FBGs strikes again.