What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Six-Strike Copyright Alert system now in place (1 Viewer)

gandalas

Footballguy
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/02/25/the-six-strike-copyright-alert-system-is-now-in-place-heres-what-you-need-to-know/

Today in the United States, the Copyright Alert System has reached the first mark of its “implementation phase.” Thus, after months of delay, the six strike system by which consumers will be directly contacted, dinged, and slowed for pirating and sharing copyrighted information is slowly coming online.

The Copyright Alert System (CAS) is known in most circles as ‘six strikes,’ a reference to its main deterent method: escalating response to activities that violate copyright.

In short, here’s how it will work: content folks – think movie studios, labels and the like – will “join public peer-2-peer (P2P) networks” to see if their content is up for grabs, according to the Center For Copyright Information. Given that it will be – nearly everything is – the content denizens will ping ISPs about the issue, and the ISP will then reach out to the offending subscriber.

In the words of the Center, “ubscribers are responsible for making sure their Internet account is not used for copyright infringement.” Thus, if your Internet connection is used by your sister’s husband’s dog to download Kanye when you are on vacation and they are house sitting, too bad. It’s still on you.

In a practical sense, we have reached a new age of copyright infrgement and enforcement. This is now, for real:

Over the course of the next several days our participating ISPs will begin rolling out the system. Practically speaking, this means our content partners will begin sending notices of alleged P2P copyright infringement to ISPs, and the ISPs will begin forwarding those notices in the form of Copyright Alerts to consumers.

Six Degress of Pain

Naturally, the amount of pain that can be brought to bear through the six strikes system will determine how much you have to fear if you are a fan of pirating your content. If you are a subscriber, as WebProNews notes, of ”AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner [or]Verizon,” this is worth listening to.

The warnings are tiered into three categories: education, acknowledgement, and mitigation.

In the educational phase, users will be informed that they have been busted. This will be something of a shock, I would think. It’s no lawsuit but to be told that you have been caught pirating someone else’s content won’t be a welcome note. The infringing party will be given links and information on how to snag their content legally in the future. If this will drive iTunes sales or Spotify downloads remains to be seen.

The second level of warning, the acknowledgement phase, will force users to complete an action, watch a video, or something else to get past the system. The goal here, it appears, is to disrupt the user in a small way to make an impact.

Finally, the last phase, for strikes five and six, appears to differ by ISP, but via The Verge, here is what Verizon customers will be served with:

Fifth and Sixth Alerts:

Redirect your browser to a special web page where you will be given several options.

You can:

Agree to an immediate temporary (2 or 3 day) reduction in the speed of your Internet access service to 256kbps (a little faster than typical dial-up speed);

Agree to the same temporary (2 or 3 day) speed reduction but delay it for a period of 14 days;or

Ask for a review of the validity of your alerts by the American Arbitration Association. There is a $35 review fee (that you will get back if you win). For subscribers who meet certain need-based eligibility criteria. the review fee will be waived by the AAA.

Key: Your ISP will not be able to cut off your Internet connection as part of the CAS. So, the worst you can be is marked as a serial offender and slowed down.

So What?

What matters here is that the CAS is a system that is hard to bemoan overmuch: it doesn’t cut off your Internet connection, is slow to slow you, and doesn’t share your personal information from your ISP to the copyright holder in normal operation. It is far more intrusive than what was in place before.

Naturally, the CAS won’t deter those most determined to get around it. You can VPN, private share, or simply switch to streaming services that serve illicit content instead of downloading files directly, as ComputerWorld notes.

Still, most folks don’t know about that sort of thing. Instead, they will be about their merry way when the warnings start to pile up. This will put immense pressure on them, especially once the later tiers of warnings appear. Many will, I suspect, switch to the proffered free offerings.

And in the age of Spotify, Pandora, Netflix, and Amazon Instant Video, the reasons to pirate are on the decline. Certainly, there are endless asinine content restrictions online, as television studios and channels are slow to embrace the Internet as little more than a step-child delivery system, but change has been afoot for long enough now that the reasons to pirate are diminished.

The CAS exists now. It’s a new era.
Crazy that this is not getting much press. Thank god that my ISP is not on the list. Here they are:https://torrentfreak.com/isp-six-strikes-anti-piracy-scheme-120803/

While we’ve written a fair number of articles on the topic, many people assume that all ISPs are part of the agreement. However, this is certainly not the case. In fact, only five Internet providers have agreed to send out warnings to their customers.

In alphabetical order these are AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon.

In total the ISPs above cover roughly 75% of all U.S. broadband internet customers. This is significant, but it nonetheless begs the question – why are the rest of the providers not involved?

Quite a few prominent names are not listed. Centurylink, Charter and Cox all have millions of subscribers, but are not taking part in the “six strikes” scheme. Not to forget the 100+ smaller providers across the United States who are also missing in action.

TorrentFreak contacted several of the larger Internet providers above to find out why, but they were reluctant to comment on their motivations. A Cox spokesperson was most vocal and said that they “have decided not to participate for internal reasons.”

Luckily Dane Jasper, CEO of the much smaller Sonic.net, was willing to comment on the efforts to make ISPs responsible for online piracy. He told TorrentFreak that ISPs are not setup to police the Internet and that the entertainment industries should look for a solution closer to home.

“ISPs provide an essential utility: connection. We are not equipped to police the actions of individuals,” Jasper says.

“I think history has shown that you cannot solve piracy by force, but that industries need to adapt around it with business models that allow consumers to access the content they want easily and at a not-unreasonable cost.”

However, the above is not the reason why Sonic.net isn’t taking part in the “six strikes” scheme. As it turns out, the RIAA and MPAA never bothered to ask Sonic and many other smaller Internet providers to join in.

“It isn’t because we refused, but because we were not asked. I know at least 100 small to medium ISPs through my trade association memberships, and have heard of no independent ISPs being approached at all,” Jasper says.

It’s not clear why they were left out, but it’s likely that it would have been too much trouble to reach consensus with so many parties involved.

When it comes to finding a solution to online piracy Sonic.net’s CEO is clear. The entertainment industries should ensure their legal offering is superior in terms of convenience and availability compared to that offered by pirates.

Jasper believes that taking away people’s incentive to pirate is key, and he mentions Pandora and Spotify as good examples of services that are able to deflate piracy.

“The point is that the music business has had to evolve to survive, moving away from albums and record stores to more innovative methods of distribution that consumers have responded to rather than turning to piracy out of an unwillingness to participate in the old model,” he says.

“I suspect that Apple TV, Roku and Netflix have similar beneficial effects on video, but a lack of uniform availability plus rather high prices and restrictive viewing terms hold back this solution,” Jasper concludes.

The MPAA and RIAA would not directly disagree that innovation is an important factor to curb piracy. But nonetheless, they hope that warning emails will also help. That people can bypass the scheme by using a VPN, cyberlockers, or even switching ISPs doesn’t change a thing.

At this point it is still unknown when the first warning letters will be sent. It is expected that the first ISPs will start later this year, and each will roll out their participation at their own pace.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ignoratio Elenchi

Footballguy
When it comes to finding a solution to online piracy Sonic.net’s CEO is clear. The entertainment industries should ensure their legal offering is superior in terms of convenience and availability compared to that offered by pirates.Jasper believes that taking away people’s incentive to pirate is key, and he mentions Pandora and Spotify as good examples of services that are able to deflate piracy.
Nailed it. For years I acquired music through questionable means. I remember when I first discovered downloading mp3s from websites on dialup before things like napster existed (or at least, before it became widely known/used). Kids today will never know the joy of waiting 20 minutes to download a single song, which you could then put on your 16MB mp3 player or burn to CD for listening on your discman. That was around 1995, and from then until 2011, I could probably count on one hand the number of albums I paid money for. Then around 18 months ago, I got Spotify. I happily pay $9.99 a month for the service and I haven't pirated a note of music since. I guess it's not surprising, but it's mindboggling that the entertainment industries are so slow to embrace changes like this.
 

[icon]

Insoxicated
I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media :shrug:I see no problem with this legislation. Piracy is theft.

 

NCCommish

Footballguy
I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media :shrug:
:goodposting: In the past year or two I think enough legal alternatives have emerged that are starting to make it kind of pointless. That's the way piracy will end, not by force.
Piracy is theft.
This thread's going 10+ pages now. :popcorn:
It's really no different than shoplifting. Well except shoplifters actually have the balls to do their crime in person.
 

SacramentoBob

Footballguy
Most of the stuff I would pirate are things the copyright holders won't be looking for. They might not even know they are the copyright holders. :lol: They are just going to track whatever is currently popular.

 

Leroy Hoard

Footballguy
Most of the stuff I would pirate are things the copyright holders won't be looking for. They might not even know they are the copyright holders. :lol: They are just going to track whatever is currently popular.
True, the less top 40 your tastes are the better it will be for you. Kinda how youtube tends to attach front ads to mainly the more popular stuff.
 

Aerial Assault

Footballguy
I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media :shrug:I see no problem with this legislation. Piracy is theft.
:goodposting: Interestingly, PiracyGuys always seem to come equipped with a righteous sense of indignation, with a "how dare they" approach to any government regulation. It would be like people attempting to form a Shoplifters' Union to defend their right to free expression in the form of a five-finger discount. The CAS is actually pretty mild and strikes a pretty good balance.
 

Ignoratio Elenchi

Footballguy
I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media :shrug:I see no problem with this legislation. Piracy is theft.
I didn't know it was a hassle
Compared to something like Spotify? Of course it is. I don't watch a lot of TV or movies, so I can't comment on that, I'm sure that's a much different animal than music. But for music purposes it makes zero sense for me to pirate stuff unless (a) I couldn't afford to pay $10 a month (I can) or (b) I just had to listen to stuff that leaked before it was officially released (I don't). :shrug:
 

Kal El

Footballguy
If I want to watch something, I'll either see if it's on Netflix or Youtube, and if it isn't, I'll see if it's available in stores. My main point of contention is the "guilty until proven innocent" vibe this sets off.

 

12punch

Footballguy
Well, i've never used spotify, so i can't comment on that, but i don't see how much easier it could get.

 

Quez

Footballguy
I have bought stuff off of Amazon Prime or Xbox streaming, but I primarily torrent because of convenience. Torrent sites seem to be the best way to see all of the top available movies in a single location. The industry needs to catch up and make it more convenient.Why on earth would anyone even want to own a bluray player when streaming HD movies has been available for almost a decade now? The big corporations are throttling technology here. All the studios need to get on the same page here and realize the days of raping customers over hard copy prices is over.As far as "pirating is stealing" I dont really see how it is much different than copying a VHS and lending it to a friend. As long as you aren't trying to resell it or make money off of it, then it shouldn't be illegal anyways. If you bought the title you should be able to copy it as many times and do whatever you want with it.I think that the less power the music industry and movie studios have the better. They rape the actual artist & talent of the majority of profits anyways.

 

Slapdash

Footballguy
I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media :shrug:
:goodposting: In the past year or two I think enough legal alternatives have emerged that are starting to make it kind of pointless. That's the way piracy will end, not by force.
Piracy is theft.
This thread's going 10+ pages now. :popcorn:
It's really no different than shoplifting. Well except shoplifters actually have the balls to do their crime in person.
It's really very different than shoplifting.
 

FreeBaGeL

Footballguy
Most of the stuff I would pirate are things the copyright holders won't be looking for. They might not even know they are the copyright holders. :lol: They are just going to track whatever is currently popular.
This is why I'm always careful to put a "Property of Bagelicious Inc" watermark on me and my wife's sex tapes. When that #### is blowing up TPB at least people will know that they're stealing from me.
 

CBusAlex

Footballguy
If you bought the title you should be able to copy it as many times and do whatever you want with it.
I feel the same way about money. I earned this $100 bill, I should be able to make as many copies of it as I want.
 

Toad_1234

Footballguy
I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media :shrug:
:goodposting: In the past year or two I think enough legal alternatives have emerged that are starting to make it kind of pointless. That's the way piracy will end, not by force.
Piracy is theft.
This thread's going 10+ pages now. :popcorn:
It's really no different than shoplifting. Well except shoplifters actually have the balls to do their crime in person.
It's really very different than shoplifting.
There's always an excuse for piracy. Always. One rarely reads a pirate admit that they are a cheap ******* and like to steal stuff lol.
 
There's always an excuse for piracy. Always. One rarely reads a pirate admit that they are a cheap ******* and like to steal stuff lol.
It's not an excuse for anything. I don't use torrent sites. I use Spotify, Amazon Prime, Xfinity On-Demand, iTunes. A whole panopoly of legal alternatives.But I know that copyright infringement is a very different legal wrong than theft, because I understand the distinction between rivalrous and non-rivalrous uses of property.
 

SeveredHorseHeads

Footballguy
Honest question: if I buy a newly released hardcover book at retail (ebook not available at release), why do I later have to pay full retail for an electronic copy of the exact same book? My understanding is that the main compenent of the purchase price is the related to the intellectual property so I guess I don't understand why I need to pay for this twice. Especially considering the marginal cost of one additional ebook is essentially zero.

 

Possum

Footballguy
I think that the less power the music industry and movie studios have the better. They rape the actual artist & talent of the majority of profits anyways.
yeah, so you might as well go ahead and take away the rest of the artist's profits anyway, right?
 

NCCommish

Footballguy
I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media :shrug:
:goodposting: In the past year or two I think enough legal alternatives have emerged that are starting to make it kind of pointless. That's the way piracy will end, not by force.
Piracy is theft.
This thread's going 10+ pages now. :popcorn:
It's really no different than shoplifting. Well except shoplifters actually have the balls to do their crime in person.
It's really very different than shoplifting.
Not even a little bit. You go online and steal the movie you want. Some guy without internet goes into WalMart and steals the movie he wants. Now show me this huge difference between the two.Actually I guess there is a difference. WalMart actually already paid for the movie so you aren't stealing from the artist just WalMart. Shoplifting comes out more honorable again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Usual21

Footballguy
I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media :shrug:I see no problem with this legislation. Piracy is theft.
The problem is that it isn't a hassle at all. With the prices of going to a movie with the wife after tix, food, and babysitter getting close to $60-$70, I would download a movie in heartbeat. Being able to watch movies at home the same day they come out in theaters? Count me in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cliff Clavin

Footballguy
Honest question: if I buy a newly released hardcover book at retail (ebook not available at release), why do I later have to pay full retail for an electronic copy of the exact same book? My understanding is that the main compenent of the purchase price is the related to the intellectual property so I guess I don't understand why I need to pay for this twice. Especially considering the marginal cost of one additional ebook is essentially zero.
:shrug:Scenario 1: I pay for cable so that I can watch <insert show>. I may or may not watch that show when it is on but I DVR it so I can watch whenever. I then copy it off my DVR so I can watch it on my laptop wherever I go. This is legal. Scenario 2: I pay for cable so that I can watch <insert show>. I may or may not watch that show when it is on but I DVR it so I can watch whenever. I download a copy so that I can watch it on my laptop. This is illegal. Makes complete sense :thumbup:
 

Aerial Assault

Footballguy
But I know that copyright infringement is a very different legal wrong than theft, because I understand the distinction between rivalrous and non-rivalrous uses of property.
I've never bought this argument. It's non-rivalrous only in the sense that you pirating it does not deprive the owner of the use of the good in the complete way that shoplifting does. However, it does deprive the owner of a portion of the compensation for his work to which he has a right. The copyright owner's property interest is diluted, and he/she has less money to show for his or her labors. The main reason that people don't equate piracy to the shoplifting is because there are more layers and more physical distance between the owner and the thief/infringer. It's still theft.
 

Aerial Assault

Footballguy
Honest question: if I buy a newly released hardcover book at retail (ebook not available at release), why do I later have to pay full retail for an electronic copy of the exact same book? My understanding is that the main compenent of the purchase price is the related to the intellectual property so I guess I don't understand why I need to pay for this twice. Especially considering the marginal cost of one additional ebook is essentially zero.
:shrug:Scenario 1: I pay for cable so that I can watch <insert show>. I may or may not watch that show when it is on but I DVR it so I can watch whenever. I then copy it off my DVR so I can watch it on my laptop wherever I go. This is legal. Scenario 2: I pay for cable so that I can watch <insert show>. I may or may not watch that show when it is on but I DVR it so I can watch whenever. I download a copy so that I can watch it on my laptop. This is illegal. Makes complete sense :thumbup:
Actually it does, because in Scenario 1 you haven't diluted anyone's intellectual property rights. So why not just do it that way?
 

12punch

Footballguy
I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media :shrug:
:goodposting: In the past year or two I think enough legal alternatives have emerged that are starting to make it kind of pointless. That's the way piracy will end, not by force.
Piracy is theft.
This thread's going 10+ pages now. :popcorn:
It's really no different than shoplifting. Well except shoplifters actually have the balls to do their crime in person.
It's really very different than shoplifting.
Not even a little bit. You go online and steal the movie you want. Some guy without internet goes into WalMart and steals the movie he wants. Now show me this huge difference between the two.Actually I guess there is a difference. WalMart actually already paid for the movie so you aren't stealing from the artist just WalMart. Shoplifting comes out more honorable again.
wouldn't walmart have to order another copy?
 

NCCommish

Footballguy
I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media :shrug:
:goodposting: In the past year or two I think enough legal alternatives have emerged that are starting to make it kind of pointless. That's the way piracy will end, not by force.
Piracy is theft.
This thread's going 10+ pages now. :popcorn:
It's really no different than shoplifting. Well except shoplifters actually have the balls to do their crime in person.
It's really very different than shoplifting.
Not even a little bit. You go online and steal the movie you want. Some guy without internet goes into WalMart and steals the movie he wants. Now show me this huge difference between the two.Actually I guess there is a difference. WalMart actually already paid for the movie so you aren't stealing from the artist just WalMart. Shoplifting comes out more honorable again.
wouldn't walmart have to order another copy?
Perhaps and so again I guess the shoplifter comes out better than your average illegal downloader.
 
But I know that copyright infringement is a very different legal wrong than theft, because I understand the distinction between rivalrous and non-rivalrous uses of property.
I've never bought this argument. It's non-rivalrous only in the sense that you pirating it does not deprive the owner of the use of the good in the complete way that shoplifting does. However, it does deprive the owner of a portion of the compensation for his work to which he has a right. The copyright owner's property interest is diluted, and he/she has less money to show for his or her labors. The main reason that people don't equate piracy to the shoplifting is because there are more layers and more physical distance between the owner and the thief/infringer. It's still theft.
What you've described is a difference between theft and copying. In the case of copying, the harm to content producers is exactly the same as the harm they suffer when I decide to not buy their song (without copying). They can still sell the song to someone else.When I steal a gallon of milk, they cannot. To the extent that we argue that rights holders sell less songs or movies whatever when people can copy those things, that's an empirical claim that I'm not sure you can really support with data. Some copying almost certainly helps rights holders sell more copies of copyrighted works. Whether that remains true as services like Spotify become more mature is up for debate. But there was a time when a FBG friend sent me a CD every year with his favorite songs of the previous year. This was copyright infringement (and about as far down that rabbit hole as I ever went). And I bought several songs and albums based upon hearing those bands on that CD. Now, that guy posts those tracks as a Spotify playlist. The rights holders presumably receive some portion of my monthly subscription fee. But I'm not sure they do better now, because I'm not buying their albums on iTunes anymore. I'm streaming them through Spotify. Whatever those rights holders felt about me getting mix tapes, they might rationally prefer the old system if they had all the information. I doubt we really have the data to know whether artists are being hurt by copying, but we shouldn't just accept it on faith. Because that justification only works if it's empirically correct.
 

Cliff Clavin

Footballguy
Honest question: if I buy a newly released hardcover book at retail (ebook not available at release), why do I later have to pay full retail for an electronic copy of the exact same book? My understanding is that the main compenent of the purchase price is the related to the intellectual property so I guess I don't understand why I need to pay for this twice. Especially considering the marginal cost of one additional ebook is essentially zero.
:shrug:Scenario 1: I pay for cable so that I can watch <insert show>. I may or may not watch that show when it is on but I DVR it so I can watch whenever. I then copy it off my DVR so I can watch it on my laptop wherever I go. This is legal. Scenario 2: I pay for cable so that I can watch <insert show>. I may or may not watch that show when it is on but I DVR it so I can watch whenever. I download a copy so that I can watch it on my laptop. This is illegal. Makes complete sense :thumbup:
Actually it does, because in Scenario 1 you haven't diluted anyone's intellectual property rights. So why not just do it that way?
Please explain how I've diluted someones property rights. In both scenarios I'm making an additional copy for my own personal use.
 

Aerial Assault

Footballguy
I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media :shrug:
:goodposting: In the past year or two I think enough legal alternatives have emerged that are starting to make it kind of pointless. That's the way piracy will end, not by force.
Piracy is theft.
This thread's going 10+ pages now. :popcorn:
It's really no different than shoplifting. Well except shoplifters actually have the balls to do their crime in person.
It's really very different than shoplifting.
Not even a little bit. You go online and steal the movie you want. Some guy without internet goes into WalMart and steals the movie he wants. Now show me this huge difference between the two.Actually I guess there is a difference. WalMart actually already paid for the movie so you aren't stealing from the artist just WalMart. Shoplifting comes out more honorable again.
wouldn't walmart have to order another copy?
Yes. His point is that shoplifting deprives only Walmart of the good, not the artist. The artist, at least, was compensated.
 

Jayrok

Footballguy
I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media :shrug:
:goodposting: In the past year or two I think enough legal alternatives have emerged that are starting to make it kind of pointless. That's the way piracy will end, not by force.
Piracy is theft.
This thread's going 10+ pages now. :popcorn:
It's really no different than shoplifting. Well except shoplifters actually have the balls to do their crime in person.
It's really very different than shoplifting.
Not even a little bit. You go online and steal the movie you want. Some guy without internet goes into WalMart and steals the movie he wants. Now show me this huge difference between the two.Actually I guess there is a difference. WalMart actually already paid for the movie so you aren't stealing from the artist just WalMart. Shoplifting comes out more honorable again.
Would it be different if the guy went into Walmart and bought a DVD, then went home and burned it onto his computer? Can he share that digital file with members of his family or friends? Could he let those same friends borrow his purchased copy of the DVD for their viewing? I imagine most users of torrent type networks are not getting files from some secret server at the movie studio. They are getting parts of files from other people's computers who have decided to share them. Did the person sharing the file buy it legally? How can we know either way? How much sharing of the DVD crosses the line? One person, two... 35? The question is rhetorical.. I don't know.
 

kface

Footballguy
whatever your opinion of it, illegal downloading is the best thing to happen in a long time to entertainment. It is shaking up the paradigm and breaking down the monopolies on music, arts and entertainment. It took this to get that movement going...they are still fighting to get back to the old ways but they will lose and a new era will dawn.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Aerial Assault

Footballguy
But I know that copyright infringement is a very different legal wrong than theft, because I understand the distinction between rivalrous and non-rivalrous uses of property.
I've never bought this argument. It's non-rivalrous only in the sense that you pirating it does not deprive the owner of the use of the good in the complete way that shoplifting does. However, it does deprive the owner of a portion of the compensation for his work to which he has a right. The copyright owner's property interest is diluted, and he/she has less money to show for his or her labors. The main reason that people don't equate piracy to the shoplifting is because there are more layers and more physical distance between the owner and the thief/infringer. It's still theft.
What you've described is a difference between theft and copying. In the case of copying, the harm to content producers is exactly the same as the harm they suffer when I decide to not buy their song (without copying). They can still sell the song to someone else.When I steal a gallon of milk, they cannot. To the extent that we argue that rights holders sell less songs or movies whatever when people can copy those things, that's an empirical claim that I'm not sure you can really support with data. Some copying almost certainly helps rights holders sell more copies of copyrighted works. Whether that remains true as services like Spotify become more mature is up for debate. But there was a time when a FBG friend sent me a CD every year with his favorite songs of the previous year. This was copyright infringement (and about as far down that rabbit hole as I ever went). And I bought several songs and albums based upon hearing those bands on that CD. Now, that guy posts those tracks as a Spotify playlist. The rights holders presumably receive some portion of my monthly subscription fee. But I'm not sure they do better now, because I'm not buying their albums on iTunes anymore. I'm streaming them through Spotify. Whatever those rights holders felt about me getting mix tapes, they might rationally prefer the old system if they had all the information. I doubt we really have the data to know whether artists are being hurt by copying, but we shouldn't just accept it on faith. Because that justification only works if it's empirically correct.
I completely agree with you that the current system may not adequately compensate artists, and I also agree that we can't even really tell if they are being adequately compensated, because it's a difficult to quantify. What I am sure of is that if they receive no compensation, that's inadequate.
 
Honest question: if I buy a newly released hardcover book at retail (ebook not available at release), why do I later have to pay full retail for an electronic copy of the exact same book? My understanding is that the main compenent of the purchase price is the related to the intellectual property so I guess I don't understand why I need to pay for this twice. Especially considering the marginal cost of one additional ebook is essentially zero.
:shrug:Scenario 1: I pay for cable so that I can watch <insert show>. I may or may not watch that show when it is on but I DVR it so I can watch whenever. I then copy it off my DVR so I can watch it on my laptop wherever I go. This is legal. Scenario 2: I pay for cable so that I can watch <insert show>. I may or may not watch that show when it is on but I DVR it so I can watch whenever. I download a copy so that I can watch it on my laptop. This is illegal. Makes complete sense :thumbup:
Actually it does, because in Scenario 1 you haven't diluted anyone's intellectual property rights. So why not just do it that way?
That's just question begging.Time shifting via a DVR (or at the time, a Betamax) is only considered to not violate someone's intellectual property rights because the Supreme Court decided it didn't. There's nothing in the Copyright Act that compels that conclusion. In fact, it's not entirely clear that scenario 1 is legal. My understanding is that "place shifting" as opposed to time shifting is still somewhat of a legal grey area. Which is why Tivo's software actually restricts you from loading some content to you laptop depending on the rights holders' policies.
 

Aerial Assault

Footballguy
Honest question: if I buy a newly released hardcover book at retail (ebook not available at release), why do I later have to pay full retail for an electronic copy of the exact same book? My understanding is that the main compenent of the purchase price is the related to the intellectual property so I guess I don't understand why I need to pay for this twice. Especially considering the marginal cost of one additional ebook is essentially zero.
:shrug:Scenario 1: I pay for cable so that I can watch <insert show>. I may or may not watch that show when it is on but I DVR it so I can watch whenever. I then copy it off my DVR so I can watch it on my laptop wherever I go. This is legal. Scenario 2: I pay for cable so that I can watch <insert show>. I may or may not watch that show when it is on but I DVR it so I can watch whenever. I download a copy so that I can watch it on my laptop. This is illegal. Makes complete sense :thumbup:
Actually it does, because in Scenario 1 you haven't diluted anyone's intellectual property rights. So why not just do it that way?
Please explain how I've diluted someones property rights. In both scenarios I'm making an additional copy for my own personal use.
Because in Scenario 2, for reasons that are unclear to me, you decided to use the property twice. The artist therefore has a right to be compensated twice, but you're only compensating them once. But more broadly, I think you're actually proving the point that piracy can, in many instances, actually be pretty silly. If you have the knowledge and resources to undertake Scenario 1, why wouldn't you just do so?
 

Aerial Assault

Footballguy
That's just question begging.
Not really. He asked why one scenario was legal and the other wasn't, and I told him. I also took the time to express my confusion as to why he didn't engage in the legal practice if he knows how to do it.
Time shifting via a DVR (or at the time, a Betamax) is only considered to not violate someone's intellectual property rights because the Supreme Court decided it didn't. There's nothing in the Copyright Act that compels that conclusion.
So? The Supreme Court is entitled to interpret the Copyright Act, and did so. "[O]nly . . . because the Supreme Court decided" something isn't really a good reason for dimissing the law of the land. Supreme Court decisions are sort of a big deal.
In fact, it's not entirely clear that scenario 1 is legal. My understanding is that "place shifting" as opposed to time shifting is still somewhat of a legal grey area. Which is why Tivo's software actually restricts you from loading some content to you laptop depending on the rights holders' policies.
I agree with the existence of a gray area, but I think that Cliff's first scenario is probably legal.
 

Cliff Clavin

Footballguy
Honest question: if I buy a newly released hardcover book at retail (ebook not available at release), why do I later have to pay full retail for an electronic copy of the exact same book? My understanding is that the main compenent of the purchase price is the related to the intellectual property so I guess I don't understand why I need to pay for this twice. Especially considering the marginal cost of one additional ebook is essentially zero.
:shrug:Scenario 1: I pay for cable so that I can watch <insert show>. I may or may not watch that show when it is on but I DVR it so I can watch whenever. I then copy it off my DVR so I can watch it on my laptop wherever I go. This is legal. Scenario 2: I pay for cable so that I can watch <insert show>. I may or may not watch that show when it is on but I DVR it so I can watch whenever. I download a copy so that I can watch it on my laptop. This is illegal. Makes complete sense :thumbup:
Actually it does, because in Scenario 1 you haven't diluted anyone's intellectual property rights. So why not just do it that way?
Please explain how I've diluted someones property rights. In both scenarios I'm making an additional copy for my own personal use.
Because in Scenario 2, for reasons that are unclear to me, you decided to use the property twice. The artist therefore has a right to be compensated twice, but you're only compensating them once. But more broadly, I think you're actually proving the point that piracy can, in many instances, actually be pretty silly. If you have the knowledge and resources to undertake Scenario 1, why wouldn't you just do so?
The artist wouldn't be compensated twice if I copy off my DVR. They won't be compensated when I watch the show over and over on my DVR. I'm not denying them of anything. In two clicks I can download an episode. To copy something off my DVR and I have to physically connect it to my PC. It is simply a matter of convenience to produce the same outcome.
 

Aerial Assault

Footballguy
Because in Scenario 2, for reasons that are unclear to me, you decided to use the property twice. The artist therefore has a right to be compensated twice, but you're only compensating them once.
Is this the same answer for the book question?
I'd say so, yeah. But I'd also argue that it would make more sense for the hardcover purchase to come with some sort of license to download the e-version. There are plenty of market efficiencies that unfortunately combine with copyright law to make piracy appear convenient and appealing.
 

Aerial Assault

Footballguy
Honest question: if I buy a newly released hardcover book at retail (ebook not available at release), why do I later have to pay full retail for an electronic copy of the exact same book? My understanding is that the main compenent of the purchase price is the related to the intellectual property so I guess I don't understand why I need to pay for this twice. Especially considering the marginal cost of one additional ebook is essentially zero.
:shrug:Scenario 1: I pay for cable so that I can watch <insert show>. I may or may not watch that show when it is on but I DVR it so I can watch whenever. I then copy it off my DVR so I can watch it on my laptop wherever I go. This is legal. Scenario 2: I pay for cable so that I can watch <insert show>. I may or may not watch that show when it is on but I DVR it so I can watch whenever. I download a copy so that I can watch it on my laptop. This is illegal. Makes complete sense :thumbup:
Actually it does, because in Scenario 1 you haven't diluted anyone's intellectual property rights. So why not just do it that way?
Please explain how I've diluted someones property rights. In both scenarios I'm making an additional copy for my own personal use.
Because in Scenario 2, for reasons that are unclear to me, you decided to use the property twice. The artist therefore has a right to be compensated twice, but you're only compensating them once. But more broadly, I think you're actually proving the point that piracy can, in many instances, actually be pretty silly. If you have the knowledge and resources to undertake Scenario 1, why wouldn't you just do so?
The artist wouldn't be compensated twice if I copy off my DVR. They won't be compensated when I watch the show over and over on my DVR. I'm not denying them of anything. In two clicks I can download an episode. To copy something off my DVR and I have to physically connect it to my PC. It is simply a matter of convenience to produce the same outcome.
It's this simple: if you obtain a good from two different sources, but only pay for it once, you're not compensating the artist adequately. It may not make sense to you but it is the law. And the argument that you can watch something over and over again while only paying for it once carries no weight, as you must know. The real answer to your question lies in a more centralized, unified distribution of content, and better regulations defining what is and isn't piracy. All that said, your scenarios are not what really what the new CAS is designed to stop, and I agree with your implied point that enforcement, if you encounter it in your defined scenarios, would be unfortunate.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top