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

[Toad_1234]

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.

I'm totally against piracy, but this does bother me. I imagine being able to buy a hard copy and get a free digital copy will come down the pipeline in the future. How long, who knows?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

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.

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

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.

See, it is gouging/logic like that which is why people turn to piracy. Trying to charge me twice for the identical thing I've paid for? Good luck with that.

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

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.

Thanks and I agree. I think physical books should now come with digital keys to allow access to download digital versions of the same book at cost. They do this with case packs in academia and it seems to work fine there.

 

[Aerial Assault]

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.

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

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.

See, it is gouging/logic like that which is why people turn to piracy. Trying to charge me twice for the identical thing I've paid for? Good luck with that.

I'm not charging you with anything, I'm just telling you that what you're doing is probably illegal. So good luck to you.

 

[GroveDiesel]

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.

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

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.

Are you making an exact copy? Or are you downloading a copy that has removed the commercials that helped pay for the content?

 

[bonesman]

PeerBlock should work fine for this, no?

 

[Aerial Assault]

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.

Thanks and I agree. I think physical books should now come with digital keys to allow access to download digital versions of the same book at cost. They do this with case packs in academia and it seems to work fine there.

Right; great example. There is no reason whatsoever why they can't add a couple/few bucks to the hardcover version (or less; whatever a fair or market-supportable cost is) to enable free access to the e-version, reducing piracy and still compensating the artist, while making the consumer happy. I imagine this will happen pretty soon; no idea why it hasn't yet.

 

[Slapdash]

PeerBlock should work fine for this, no?

VPN is the way to go.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

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.

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

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.

Are you making an exact copy? Or are you downloading a copy that has removed the commercials that helped pay for the content?

Whether the commercials are there or not is irrelevant since I can fast forward / skip through them.

 

[Slapdash]

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.

Thanks and I agree. I think physical books should now come with digital keys to allow access to download digital versions of the same book at cost. They do this with case packs in academia and it seems to work fine there.

Right; great example. There is no reason whatsoever why they can't add a couple/few bucks to the hardcover version (or less; whatever a fair or market-supportable cost is) to enable free access to the e-version, reducing piracy and still compensating the artist, while making the consumer happy. I imagine this will happen pretty soon; no idea why it hasn't yet.

You have no idea why that hasn't happened? Come on.

 

[GroveDiesel]

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.

Thanks and I agree. I think physical books should now come with digital keys to allow access to download digital versions of the same book at cost. They do this with case packs in academia and it seems to work fine there.

I bet we're headed that way. We're already there somewhat with movies and music. DVDs and BluRays now provide you with an "Ultraviolet" copy that allows you to stream the movie through a bunch of different services and devices.On the music front, if you've bought CDs through Amazon, they now give you the MP3s for free as well. Or with Google Drive, any CDs you've ripped to your computer appear in your Google Drive and you can stream them using Google Play to other devices.So it's only matter of time before this will apply to books as well.

 

[Slapdash]

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.

Thanks and I agree. I think physical books should now come with digital keys to allow access to download digital versions of the same book at cost. They do this with case packs in academia and it seems to work fine there.

I bet we're headed that way. We're already there somewhat with movies and music. DVDs and BluRays now provide you with an "Ultraviolet" copy that allows you to stream the movie through a bunch of different services and devices.On the music front, if you've bought CDs through Amazon, they now give you the MP3s for free as well. Or with Google Drive, any CDs you've ripped to your computer appear in your Google Drive and you can stream them using Google Play to other devices.So it's only matter of time before this will apply to books as well.

I have bought some DVDs from Amazon that allow you to actually download the media to your hardrive. Hopefully that is the way things go, but it seems mainly the newer companies that think this way. Companies that made their bones in the older content models seem pretty reluctant to change.

 

[Aerial Assault]

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.

Thanks and I agree. I think physical books should now come with digital keys to allow access to download digital versions of the same book at cost. They do this with case packs in academia and it seems to work fine there.

Right; great example. There is no reason whatsoever why they can't add a couple/few bucks to the hardcover version (or less; whatever a fair or market-supportable cost is) to enable free access to the e-version, reducing piracy and still compensating the artist, while making the consumer happy. I imagine this will happen pretty soon; no idea why it hasn't yet.

You have no idea why that hasn't happened? Come on.

Not really, no. I guess you're implying that everyone wants to gobble up more money by charging the full ride for multiple versions, but I think it should be pretty clear to everyone in the publishing and music industries by now that regulation is only one part of eliminating or at least reducing piracy. Correcting market inefficiencies will probably end up making them more money in the long run.

 

[GroveDiesel]

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.

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

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.

Are you making an exact copy? Or are you downloading a copy that has removed the commercials that helped pay for the content?

Whether the commercials are there or not is irrelevant since I can fast forward / skip through them.

It's not irrelevant at all. Yes, you can fast forward or skip them, but both methods will still provide some exposure and force you to actively ignore them. It's why networks haven't fought especially hard to kill fast forwarding on DVRs but are going crazy on DISH and their Hopper.

 

[Slapdash]

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.

Thanks and I agree. I think physical books should now come with digital keys to allow access to download digital versions of the same book at cost. They do this with case packs in academia and it seems to work fine there.

Right; great example. There is no reason whatsoever why they can't add a couple/few bucks to the hardcover version (or less; whatever a fair or market-supportable cost is) to enable free access to the e-version, reducing piracy and still compensating the artist, while making the consumer happy. I imagine this will happen pretty soon; no idea why it hasn't yet.

You have no idea why that hasn't happened? Come on.

Not really, no. I guess you're implying that everyone wants to gobble up more money by charging the full ride for multiple versions, but I think it should be pretty clear to everyone in the publishing and music industries by now that regulation is only one part of eliminating or at least reducing piracy. Correcting market inefficiencies will probably end up making them more money in the long run.

If it is so clear to them, why are the pursuing the method this thread is about so strongly instead of doing that? As an aside, I think you are severly overestimating the importance of the long run to a public company. They are most interested in what increases revenue this quarter.

 

[Aerial Assault]

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.

Thanks and I agree. I think physical books should now come with digital keys to allow access to download digital versions of the same book at cost. They do this with case packs in academia and it seems to work fine there.

Right; great example. There is no reason whatsoever why they can't add a couple/few bucks to the hardcover version (or less; whatever a fair or market-supportable cost is) to enable free access to the e-version, reducing piracy and still compensating the artist, while making the consumer happy. I imagine this will happen pretty soon; no idea why it hasn't yet.

You have no idea why that hasn't happened? Come on.

Not really, no. I guess you're implying that everyone wants to gobble up more money by charging the full ride for multiple versions, but I think it should be pretty clear to everyone in the publishing and music industries by now that regulation is only one part of eliminating or at least reducing piracy. Correcting market inefficiencies will probably end up making them more money in the long run.

If it is so clear to them, why are the pursuing the method this thread is about so strongly instead of doing that? As an aside, I think you are severly overestimating the importance of the long run to a public company. They are most interested in what increases revenue this quarter.

Because they're pursuing a dual-track strategy: regulation and innovation. This is fairly common. And the CAS is hardly some draconian measure. As for your aside, didn't you just (correctly) point out that Amazon now offers free digitized versions of music that you buy from them? So I disagree about companies taking the long view; many of them do, particularly in tech-savvy industries.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

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.

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

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.

Are you making an exact copy? Or are you downloading a copy that has removed the commercials that helped pay for the content?

Whether the commercials are there or not is irrelevant since I can fast forward / skip through them.

It's not irrelevant at all. Yes, you can fast forward or skip them, but both methods will still provide some exposure and force you to actively ignore them. It's why networks haven't fought especially hard to kill fast forwarding on DVRs but are going crazy on DISH and their Hopper.

Watching a sitcom on the DVR means I have to press skip 30 seconds 4x. I don't see any commercials at all. Actively ignoring them isn't very hard.

 

[Slapdash]

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.

Thanks and I agree. I think physical books should now come with digital keys to allow access to download digital versions of the same book at cost. They do this with case packs in academia and it seems to work fine there.

Right; great example. There is no reason whatsoever why they can't add a couple/few bucks to the hardcover version (or less; whatever a fair or market-supportable cost is) to enable free access to the e-version, reducing piracy and still compensating the artist, while making the consumer happy. I imagine this will happen pretty soon; no idea why it hasn't yet.

You have no idea why that hasn't happened? Come on.

Not really, no. I guess you're implying that everyone wants to gobble up more money by charging the full ride for multiple versions, but I think it should be pretty clear to everyone in the publishing and music industries by now that regulation is only one part of eliminating or at least reducing piracy. Correcting market inefficiencies will probably end up making them more money in the long run.

If it is so clear to them, why are the pursuing the method this thread is about so strongly instead of doing that? As an aside, I think you are severly overestimating the importance of the long run to a public company. They are most interested in what increases revenue this quarter.

Because they're pursuing a dual-track strategy: regulation and innovation. This is fairly common. And the CAS is hardly some draconian measure. As for your aside, didn't you just (correctly) point out that Amazon now offers free digitized versions of music that you buy from them? So I disagree about companies taking the long view; many of them do, particularly in tech-savvy industries.

Amazon is a pretty unique company with regards to the long term though, as anyone following stocks will know. I don't see the companies that make up the MPAA or control TV content pursuing a dual-track strategy. They seem most interested in things like CAS, SOPA, and DRM. I think having ISPs monitor and report on your activities is extremely draconian so we'll agree to disagree there. That will only get worse across every online activity though.

 

[Aerial Assault]

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.

Thanks and I agree. I think physical books should now come with digital keys to allow access to download digital versions of the same book at cost. They do this with case packs in academia and it seems to work fine there.

Right; great example. There is no reason whatsoever why they can't add a couple/few bucks to the hardcover version (or less; whatever a fair or market-supportable cost is) to enable free access to the e-version, reducing piracy and still compensating the artist, while making the consumer happy. I imagine this will happen pretty soon; no idea why it hasn't yet.

You have no idea why that hasn't happened? Come on.

Not really, no. I guess you're implying that everyone wants to gobble up more money by charging the full ride for multiple versions, but I think it should be pretty clear to everyone in the publishing and music industries by now that regulation is only one part of eliminating or at least reducing piracy. Correcting market inefficiencies will probably end up making them more money in the long run.

If it is so clear to them, why are the pursuing the method this thread is about so strongly instead of doing that? As an aside, I think you are severly overestimating the importance of the long run to a public company. They are most interested in what increases revenue this quarter.

Because they're pursuing a dual-track strategy: regulation and innovation. This is fairly common. And the CAS is hardly some draconian measure. As for your aside, didn't you just (correctly) point out that Amazon now offers free digitized versions of music that you buy from them? So I disagree about companies taking the long view; many of them do, particularly in tech-savvy industries.

Amazon is a pretty unique company with regards to the long term though, as anyone following stocks will know. I don't see the companies that make up the MPAA or control TV content pursuing a dual-track strategy. They seem most interested in things like CAS, SOPA, and DRM. I think having ISPs monitor and report on your activities is extremely draconian so we'll agree to disagree there. That will only get worse across every online activity though.

Enh - - let's see how it's actually implemented first. These things change, as you know. You're right about Amazon, but they're such a leader in this area that I think any strategy that they undertake is bound to catch on. It may take some time, but I think it will. At least everything's not completely monolithic.

 

[Slapdash]

Enh - - let's see how it's actually implemented first. These things change, as you know. You're right about Amazon, but they're such a leader in this area that I think any strategy that they undertake is bound to catch on. It may take some time, but I think it will. At least everything's not completely monolithic.

I very much hope companies like Amazon, Spotify, and Netflix can force a change to the model. The key will be creating content instead of just delivering it though. As long the old guard controls the creation it will be resisting change. So, make sure to watch House of Cards.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Enh - - let's see how it's actually implemented first. These things change, as you know. You're right about Amazon, but they're such a leader in this area that I think any strategy that they undertake is bound to catch on. It may take some time, but I think it will. At least everything's not completely monolithic.

I very much hope companies like Amazon, Spotify, and Netflix can force a change to the model. The key will be creating content instead of just delivering it though. As long the old guard controls the creation it will be resisting change. So, make sure to watch House of Cards.

 

[12punch]

I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media

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.

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.

I thought his point was that there is no difference

 

[Slapdash]

I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media

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.

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.

I thought his point was that there is no difference

Seems like his point is that is morally preferable to steal a physical good from a store than share a copy of it that you purchased.

 

[Polish Hammer]

PeerBlock should work fine for this, no?

VPN is the way to go.

Tell me more.

 

[GoFishTN]

PeerBlock should work fine for this, no?

Peerblock is kind of like having a list of where the cops have given out speeding tickets in your town. It's useful, and will help some, but it's not going to keep you from ever getting a speeding ticket.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

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.

Thanks and I agree. I think physical books should now come with digital keys to allow access to download digital versions of the same book at cost. They do this with case packs in academia and it seems to work fine there.

Right; great example. There is no reason whatsoever why they can't add a couple/few bucks to the hardcover version (or less; whatever a fair or market-supportable cost is) to enable free access to the e-version, reducing piracy and still compensating the artist, while making the consumer happy. I imagine this will happen pretty soon; no idea why it hasn't yet.

um...because they make less money that way?

 

[NCCommish]

I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media

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.

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.

I thought his point was that there is no difference

Seems like his point is that is morally preferable to steal a physical good from a store than share a copy of it that you purchased.

No the point is I find them morally equivalent. You can spout all the "what is the meaning of is" legalese you want but it is still theft and there is no difference other than methodology. But at least in the shoplifting case you are only hurting the retailer who factors shrinkage into their price points not the artist who doesn't. And it takes a little bit more chutzpah to walk in and take what you want instead of hiding in mommy's basement while you do it.

 

[Christo]

LOOK AT ME! I HAVE A PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT JUSTIFYING MY ILLEGAL ACTIVITY!

 

[Sheriff66]

PeerBlock should work fine for this, no?

VPN is the way to go.

 

[Sheriff66]

PeerBlock should work fine for this, no?

VPN is the way to go.

Tell me more.

It’s here. Starting today, all five major US internet providers will be spying on our connections, watching for files downloaded using Bittorrent. If they even suspect you of copyright infringement, they could slow or even cut off your Internet connection-- all outside of the courts and without having to prove anything. So, take your business elsewhere, right? Trouble is, you probably can’t. Thanks to local cable monopolies, most Americans don’t even *have* another choice in their area. Ugh.But that doesn’t mean there’s nothing you can do. You can protect your rights with a VPN. A VPN (Virtual Private Network) routes your traffic through a virtual ISP you can trust, and stops Hollywood and your scummy “real” ISP from spying on you.This VPN provider, “Private Internet Access” is donating 40% of the proceeds to Fight for the Future, which we’ll use to fight “6 strikes” and the companies behind it. They’re one of the cheapest we’ve found (~$3/month for a year) and the easiest to set up-- which is super important if we want to make this accessible to everyone. Plus they don’t keep logs, so if the bad guys want to go after you and your family for something you say or do online, it is much harder (often impossible) for them to get your name and location. VPNs protect your personal information when you’re using public wifi networks, and they make your Internet truly global: if your country does something sleazy to the Internet, you can choose a VPN elsewhere. If you’d like to shop around, there’s a great list of other pro-privacy VPNs here.Just savor the sweetness of this for a second. For the cost of a taco, you can take away *any* power your ISP has to spy on you or undermine your Internet under “Six Strikes.” Poof. Gone. And by protecting your family and friends from six strikes, you help fund our work to fight it. This might seem like a band-aid, but actually it goes a long way to creating the kind of world we want: the company responsible for your connection to the web *should* be separate from the local company laying the wires, so you can choose the providers that do the best job of each. They *shouldn’t* be the same company selling you your TV shows-- that’s an obvious conflict of interest. And there should be lots of companies competing for your business (with VPNs, there are many) instead of arrogant, lazy, local monopolies who can shove bad service and high prices down our throats (ahem, Comcast). ISPs could block VPNs, but since so many business users depend on them for security, they’d face a huge backlash if they did.Of course, there’s a lot more to work to do. We need to hold Comcast and friends publicly accountable, break up their local monopolies, and make this kind of spying and tampering either illegal or unthinkable. More on that shortly.In the meantime, protect yourself and make your Internet more awesome by signing up for a VPN. I got one a few months ago, and it feels so great to have access to the real, unf$#&edwith Internet.Take care,Holmes Wilson (and Evan, Mary, Tiffiniy, and the whole FFTF team)http://www.fightforthefuture.org

 

[Aerial Assault]

um...because they make less money that way?

Thanks for the reply, but as I discussed with Slapdash over the last 10-12 posts, it doesn't have to be that way and Amazon, for one, has already gone to a model like the one I'm suggesting. See those posts for a more complete discussion.

 

[Bonzai]

I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media

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.

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.

Artists typically make pennies on record sales. Lets be clear, the file sharing uproar is about propping up all the leeches around artists.

 

[[icon]]

You thieves typically make a habit of sneaking into movies, concerts and such as well? Big on pirating Satellite TV?

 

[Slapdash]

No the point is I find them morally equivalent. You can spout all the "what is the meaning of is" legalese you want but it is still theft and there is no difference other than methodology. But at least in the shoplifting case you are only hurting the retailer who factors shrinkage into their price points not the artist who doesn't. And it takes a little bit more chutzpah to walk in and take what you want instead of hiding in mommy's basement while you do it.

This is all about legalese; intellectual property is a legal construct. You aren't depriving someone of physical property. The idea that privacy hurts artists is pretty ambiguous anyways; the artists see very little of that revenue.

 

[NCCommish]

I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media

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.

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.

Artists typically make pennies on record sales. Lets be clear, the file sharing uproar is about propping up all the leeches around artists.

Actually that isn't true. And the bigger the artist the more they make. An artist with a decent manager should make about 1.25 an album. MJ got 2.45 per album for Thriller meaning he grossed nearly 100 million on album sales.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

You thieves typically make a habit of sneaking into movies, concerts and such as well? Big on pirating Satellite TV?

The only guy who bugs me is the one holding up the fountain drink line sipping & refilling his cup.

 

[Copeman]

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.

If you had, and really liked a video game for the xbox, and decided you wanted to play it on the PS3 as well, would you feel like you should be entitled to a free copy for the PS3?Just as the book and eBook, the xbox and PS3 are different mediums and you should have to buy it for both.

 

[Slapdash]

PeerBlock should work fine for this, no?

VPN is the way to go.

Tell me more.

It is a private network that you can run all of your internet traffic through without your ISP seeing that traffic. You can find VPN providers that you can pay to use there services in this manner. Torrentfreak has a good guide on the providers but I cannot link them from work.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

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.

Saying that one method violates the rights holder's intellecutal property rights is the same as saying one method is illegal. It's a completely circular answer to the question of why one method is (presumably) legal and why another method is illegal.The rights holder has the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted work. In both scenarios, a copyrighted work is being reproduced. Your DVR is creating a digital copy of the show that was broadcast over the distribution network. Similarly, a torrent is downloading a digital copy of the copyrighted work onto you computer. The same intellectual property right is being violated. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has held that timesharing, as in the example with a DVR, is a fair use protected by the copyright act. In order to actually answer the question posed, you would have to explain why violating the exclusive reproduction right for time shifting is a fair use and why downloading an electronic copy when you have already "paid" for the intellectual property is not by reference to the statutory definition of a "fair use" which I include below:Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of acopyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecordsor by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism,comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determiningwhether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors tobe considered shall include—(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of acommercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes2) the nature of the copyrighted work3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrightedwork as a whole; and(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrightedwork.The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use ifsuch finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

 

[Aerial Assault]

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.

Saying that one method violates the rights holder's intellecutal property rights is the same as saying one method is illegal. It's a completely circular answer to the question of why one method is (presumably) legal and why another method is illegal.The rights holder has the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted work. In both scenarios, a copyrighted work is being reproduced. Your DVR is creating a digital copy of the show that was broadcast over the distribution network. Similarly, a torrent is downloading a digital copy of the copyrighted work onto you computer. The same intellectual property right is being violated. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has held that timesharing, as in the example with a DVR, is a fair use protected by the copyright act. In order to actually answer the question posed, you would have to explain why violating the exclusive reproduction right for time shifting is a fair use and why downloading an electronic copy when you have already "paid" for the intellectual property is not by reference to the statutory definition of a "fair use" which I include below:Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of acopyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecordsor by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism,comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determiningwhether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors tobe considered shall include—(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of acommercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes2) the nature of the copyrighted work3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrightedwork as a whole; and(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrightedwork.The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use ifsuch finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Thanks for the refresher, regardless of whatever reason you felt the need to deliver it. I practice this stuff on a daily basis, but anyway. Thanks.

 

[Christo]

No the point is I find them morally equivalent. You can spout all the "what is the meaning of is" legalese you want but it is still theft and there is no difference other than methodology. But at least in the shoplifting case you are only hurting the retailer who factors shrinkage into their price points not the artist who doesn't. And it takes a little bit more chutzpah to walk in and take what you want instead of hiding in mommy's basement while you do it.

This is all about legalese; intellectual property is a legal construct. You aren't depriving someone of physical property. The idea that privacy hurts artists is pretty ambiguous anyways; the artists see very little of that revenue.

Of course it's a legal construct. That doesn't make it any less legitimate. The laws against me taking your physical property are no less a legal construct. If I walk up to you, pull a knife and demand your purse and you cry "Thief!", my answer is might makes right. The law that supports your position is merely a legal construct.

 

[Bonzai]

I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media

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.

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.

Artists typically make pennies on record sales. Lets be clear, the file sharing uproar is about propping up all the leeches around artists.

Actually that isn't true. And the bigger the artist the more they make. An artist with a decent manager should make about 1.25 an album. MJ got 2.45 per album for Thriller meaning he grossed nearly 100 million on album sales.

A very small percentage of artists make money on record sales. Citing one of the biggest selling artists of all time isn't exactly helping your case. Sure an artist might make a percentage of their album sales, but it goes directly to paying off their advance from their label. Most artists are still way in debt to their label after factoring in record sales. The whole apparatus is outdated and out of whack. We just need to scrap it and start over. Hopefully services like Spotify and the like can help scrape away all the garbage between artists and audiences.

 

[NCCommish]

No the point is I find them morally equivalent. You can spout all the "what is the meaning of is" legalese you want but it is still theft and there is no difference other than methodology. But at least in the shoplifting case you are only hurting the retailer who factors shrinkage into their price points not the artist who doesn't. And it takes a little bit more chutzpah to walk in and take what you want instead of hiding in mommy's basement while you do it.

This is all about legalese; intellectual property is a legal construct. You aren't depriving someone of physical property. The idea that privacy hurts artists is pretty ambiguous anyways; the artists see very little of that revenue.

You guys keep telling yourselves that but only idiots with poor management see no revenue from album sales as I already pointed out. And when I refer to legalese I am talking about the semi-official sounding rhetorical gymnastics you guys use to justify your theft not the wording of the law.

 

[Quez]

So do the movie studios expect the consumer to pay for a vhs version of their movie, a DVD version, and a digital copy? Add in the failed formats like laser disc & HDDVD and you could have bought the same title 5 times and that doesn't even include 3D!Where do they draw the line? Can you make backup copies? How many can you make and who can watch?Sounds to me like too much effort to police. If they focus on having $1-$5 downloads available at the same time & same place most people would pay for the convenience. But they are too greedy and expect to sell $30 Blurays at Bestbuy to poor schmucks that have a massive blueray collection next to their massive DVD library occupying an entire wall in their living room.

 

[Sarnoff]

Meh.

IMO, this is a delay tactic by the ISPs. They're just going to let this system run for a little while, until the pirates figure out ways around it (which there are). Then they'll cry about that, and trigger the next step: pay-per-gigabit internet service. A return to the old days of AOL & CompuServe, where you were allowed X GBs per month and are charged for going over (which they are working on). Pay-per-gigabit not only kills piracy, it also slays Netflix and forces people to stop cord-cutting and return to big cable package subscriptions.

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

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.

If you had, and really liked a video game for the xbox, and decided you wanted to play it on the PS3 as well, would you feel like you should be entitled to a free copy for the PS3?Just as the book and eBook, the xbox and PS3 are different mediums and you should have to buy it for both.

I feel this is a little different as there could be actual changes to the game to accommodate different system specifications. However, if you pushed me, I would say that it makes more sense to me to get an additional copy at cost than having to purchase an additional copy at retail. This is a more tricky question than the book question, IMO. The book is the same no matter what means you use to consume it. I disagree that changing the way it is consumed means the artist/producer should be compensated at retail again for providing me an indentical product in a different and costless format.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I like it when scoobygang posts in copyright threads. I don't have to post as much because he generally says what I would have said.

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.

I think "intellectual property" is a misnomer that fogs people's thinking about this stuff. Intellectual property isn't really a type of property; it's more a type of contractual arrangement. What's being diluted isn't the copyright owner's property interest; what's being diluted is his benefit under his implied contract with the government.When I copy your song to my hard drive without your permission, that doesn't make any part of my hard drive your property. It's my property. The property paradigm doesn't fit the situation as well as the contract paradigm, IMO.

The government has told artists that when they produce works of art, they'll have a monopoly on its publication and distribution for a certain amount of time. Their monopoly rights will be enforced by the government. The government is acting on behalf of consumers when it makes that offer. In theory, it benefits consumers to give artists an incentive to create works of art. So the deal — the implied contract — is that if an artist takes the time and effort to create something worthwhile, the government will ensure that the artist will be compensated by those who choose to consume it. It ensures this by making it illegal for others to distribute the art without the creator's permission.

When I illegally download your song, I am interfering with the implied contract between you and the government. It's not hard to make a decent case that such interference is morally wrong. (After all, intentional interference with a contract is a tort in most states, and tort means wrong.)

But I think using words like "stealing" and "theft" detract from the argument. They're not really accurate, and inaccurate arguments are less convincing than accurate arguments.

I discourage calling copyright infringement "theft" not because I want to justify copyright infringement, but because I support reasonable copyright restrictions and I want to see the case for such restrictions solidly made — without the gaping holes of overstated metaphors.

 

[Bonzai]

Meh.IMO, this is a delay tactic by the ISPs. They're just going to let this system run for a little while, until the pirates figure out ways around it (which there are). Then they'll cry about that, and trigger the next step: pay-per-gigabit internet service. A return to the old days of AOL & CompuServe, where you were allowed X GBs per month and are charged for going over (which they are working on). Pay-per-gigabit not only kills piracy, it also slays Netflix and forces people to stop cord-cutting and return to big cable package subscriptions.

Horrible.

 

[Aerial Assault]

I think "intellectual property" is a misnomer that fogs people's thinking about this stuff. Intellectual property isn't really a type of property; it's more a type of contractual arrangement. What's being diluted isn't the copyright owner's property interest; what's being diluted is his benefit under his implied contract with the government.[ . . . ] But I think using words like "stealing" and "theft" detract from the argument. They're not really accurate, and inaccurate arguments are less convincing than accurate arguments.I discourage calling copyright infringement "theft" not because I want to justify copyright infringement, but because I support reasonable copyright restrictions and I want to see the case for such restrictions solidly made — without the gaping holes of overstated metaphors.

Wait, so we're going to reconceptualize IP as some sort of breach of contract, but you resist the extension of the label of theft to copyright infringement, which is a form of property deprivation and is punishable civilly and (in certain circumstances) even criminally?

 

[CBusAlex]

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

Good point. Since we all know that piracy works on the honor system and everyone only downloads shows, movies, and music which they have already purchased and duly compensated the creators for, this legislation seems completely unneccessary.