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

[Usual21]

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

Movies? Depends on the theater.Concerts? Not big on concerts.Satellite TV stinks, so no.

 

[Sarnoff]

IMO... what they should do is indeed set up a pay-per-gigabit pricing plan. Give everyone like 20GB a month, then charge them for going over.

BUT... they should also set up a legal-content "safe haven" within the system. A front-end to the internet. Like an iTunes for everything. Music, movies, TV, youtube, netflix, images, websites, blogs, tweets, everything. Anything that can be copyrighted, uploaded by anyone who can legally do so. Universal Pictures and the Chocolate Rain guy. Everyone can put stuff in the Safe Haven if they have the legal license to do so, and charge whatever they want. Downloading from the legal Safe Haven won't count against your GB/mo allowance. So if you pay $1 to stream "Zero Dark Thirty" from On Demand, or view it as part of your Netflix $9/mo, or whatever, it doesn't count against your internet usage bill. If you pirate it instead, you end up paying extra to the ISP because you'll go over your usage allotment.

The ISP then divides up the overage fees among the legal content providers in the Safe Haven. They do it in two ways: half allocated by download rank, half allocated by content provided. So if Universal Pictures accounts for 40% of all downloads in a month from the Safe Haven, give them 40% of the first half of the overage fees. If Telemundo provides 30% of the content that's in the Safe Haven, give them 30% of the second half of the overage fees. This incentivizes providing lots of content into the system, while also rewarding the most-watched or most-listened-to providers.

"Average Joes" like you and me can also benefit by providing content. Uploading videos, songs, etc. that are wholly owned by us, our own creations, can be economically rewarded. Anything accessed can be monetized... blog posts, photographs, manifestos, etc. If people start checking it out, we earn a few bucks.

IDEALLY... "fair use" starts to work its' way into the system. People should be allowed to upload cover songs, for example, their band playing a great version of a Rolling Stones song. And they should incorporate that into a licensing structure. Make it OK for someone to use a copyrighted song in their own video and put it online, as long as when they upload it they acknowledge who's copyrighted work is included... but when someone views it, credit the original copyright holder a portion based on what's been used. If someone uploads a funny dance video with the audio entirely a copyrighted song, half the profits go to the song's owners. If someone only uses a minute of copyrighted music in a 10 minute video, give the music owners 5%. Something like that.

Solves the piracy issue and the copyright issues. It probably makes too much sense to ever happen.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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?

Interference (a tort) rather than breach, and not property deprivation. Otherwise, yes."Not property deprivation" is the salient point. When I download your song without paying for it, I am not depriving you of any property. I may be depriving you of income, but that income is not, and never was, your property. (If being entitled to a monetary damages award makes it your property, then pretty much every legal wrong qualifies as property deprivation; but that's language abuse.)

 

[Cliff Clavin]

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.

Way to miss the point

 

[12punch]

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

THat sounds like a hassle.Plus, why sneak into a movie when you can d/l it from the comfort of your home?

 

[NCCommish]

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.

And I don't find it a metaphor. You took something of value from someone without their permission. Isn't that pretty much the definition of theft? The wrongful taking of property?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

And I don't find it a metaphor. You took something of value from someone without their permission. Isn't that pretty much the definition of theft? The wrongful taking of property?

What did I take from you? What did you used to have that, by taking it, I caused you to no longer have?

 

[Quez]

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.

 

[Christo]

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.

And I don't find it a metaphor. You took something of value from someone without their permission. Isn't that pretty much the definition of theft? The wrongful taking of property?

What did I take from you? What did you used to have that, by taking it, I caused you to no longer have?

Wrong question. The question should be "what do you now have that you didn't have before?"

 

[Bonzai]

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.

This is also an important point. Art is intrinsically motivating. If people stop buying trucks, companies will stop making them. But people won't stop making music if people quit paying for it. In fact, I'd say that music is typically is worse when done solely for profit. I think that's a big part of the disconnect with this whole thing. Sure talented artists should be able to make a living, but the current set up is terrible. Trying to maintain this outdated model for the sake of the artist is mindboggling.

 

[Bonzai]

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.

And I don't find it a metaphor. You took something of value from someone without their permission. Isn't that pretty much the definition of theft? The wrongful taking of property?

What did I take from you? What did you used to have that, by taking it, I caused you to no longer have?

Wrong question. The question should be "what do you now have that you didn't have before?"

Theft is wrong because it's harmful, not because someone acquires something that they didn't have before.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Art is intrinsically motivating. If people stop buying trucks, companies will stop making them. But people won't stop making music if people quit paying for it. In fact, I'd say that music is typically is worse when done solely for profit.

Yeah, whether the quality of music or e-books or whatever actually improves because of copyright protection is an empirical question. I've seen evidence that, with music, it does not. As far as I recall, two different groups came up with a way to measure the quality of popular music (or it may have been one group that came up with two different ways). The method was clever, but I've forgotten what it was. I'll try to Google it in a minute. Anyway, they looked at how the quality of music has changed over the past few decades and tried to measure the influence of piracy, if any. Their conclusion was that music was worse when copyrights were enforced better (which may have been coincidence rather than cause and effect).Hold on while I try to Google it quickly . . .

 

[dparker713]

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.

Digitial copies do not meet the generally accepted legal definition of a good.

 

[culdeus]

I like how porn is totally left out of this. all those porn tube sites are just people ripping stuff off pay sites and reposting it for free. Willing to bet all you holier than thou people go to E all the time and look at the pics that rule. Tons of that is a copyright violation, hell probably 25% of it. And how Youtube gets away with what it does is also shocking. My wife used to buy stuff on itunes to use for whatever reason but now she just listens to it on youtube. All day I just see people using youtube, not for harlem shake, but for music. This is fine now? Is music piracy just no big deal anymore?Everything is just a matter of where you draw the line and where the distribution industry wants to draw the line. There's a gap. It will close but will take time.

 

[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?

Interference (a tort) rather than breach, and not property deprivation. Otherwise, yes."Not property deprivation" is the salient point. When I download your song without paying for it, I am not depriving you of any property. I may be depriving you of income, but that income is not, and never was, your property. (If being entitled to a monetary damages award makes it your property, then pretty much every legal wrong qualifies as property deprivation; but that's language abuse.)

You're way off here. There's a reason why it's called "intellectual property" and not "intellectual right to income." And of course an expectation of compensation for one's goods or services is a property interest. In any case, we're having a sideshow discussion about labeling things that does not seem pertinent to the larger points. At all.

 

[Aerial Assault]

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.

Digitial copies do not meet the generally accepted legal definition of a good.

Huh? They are protected property interests.

 

[dparker713]

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.

Sure it does. There is no argument for natural law regarding intellectual property whereas robbery impacts personal safety.

 

[Quez]

I like how porn is totally left out of this. all those porn tube sites are just people ripping stuff off pay sites and reposting it for free. Willing to bet all you holier than thou people go to E all the time and look at the pics that rule. Tons of that is a copyright violation, hell probably 25% of it. And how Youtube gets away with what it does is also shocking. My wife used to buy stuff on itunes to use for whatever reason but now she just listens to it on youtube. All day I just see people using youtube, not for harlem shake, but for music. This is fine now? Is music piracy just no big deal anymore?Everything is just a matter of where you draw the line and where the distribution industry wants to draw the line. There's a gap. It will close but will take time.

Another guy who gets it.

 

[dparker713]

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.

Unfortunately, to me the argument in favor of the government granted monoply does not make sense for the consumer given the extensive extensions passed by Congress over the years. Return to the reasonable 14 + 14 year terms and that justification has more legitimacy.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I like how porn is totally left out of this. all those porn tube sites are just people ripping stuff off pay sites and reposting it for free. Willing to bet all you holier than thou people go to E all the time and look at the pics that rule. Tons of that is a copyright violation, hell probably 25% of it. And how Youtube gets away with what it does is also shocking. My wife used to buy stuff on itunes to use for whatever reason but now she just listens to it on youtube. All day I just see people using youtube, not for harlem shake, but for music. This is fine now? Is music piracy just no big deal anymore?Everything is just a matter of where you draw the line and where the distribution industry wants to draw the line. There's a gap. It will close but will take time.

Another guy who gets it.

Yup. Arbitrarily drawn lines that make zero sense.

 

[Christo]

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.

And I don't find it a metaphor. You took something of value from someone without their permission. Isn't that pretty much the definition of theft? The wrongful taking of property?

What did I take from you? What did you used to have that, by taking it, I caused you to no longer have?

Wrong question. The question should be "what do you now have that you didn't have before?"

Theft is wrong because it's harmful, not because someone acquires something that they didn't have before.

Depends on your definition of harmful. If I take something that I need but you don't where is the harm in that?

 

[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.

Sure it does. There is no argument for natural law regarding intellectual property whereas robbery impacts personal safety.

Not if you just give it to me.

 

[dparker713]

IDEALLY... "fair use" starts to work its' way into the system. People should be allowed to upload cover songs, for example, their band playing a great version of a Rolling Stones song. And they should incorporate that into a licensing structure. Make it OK for someone to use a copyrighted song in their own video and put it online, as long as when they upload it they acknowledge who's copyrighted work is included... but when someone views it, credit the original copyright holder a portion based on what's been used. If someone uploads a funny dance video with the audio entirely a copyrighted song, half the profits go to the song's owners. If someone only uses a minute of copyrighted music in a 10 minute video, give the music owners 5%. Something like that.Solves the piracy issue and the copyright issues. It probably makes too much sense to ever happen.

A copyright is just as much about preventing someone from using your recording/music publishing as it is monetizing the use of a song/music.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Art is intrinsically motivating. If people stop buying trucks, companies will stop making them. But people won't stop making music if people quit paying for it. In fact, I'd say that music is typically is worse when done solely for profit.

Yeah, whether the quality of music or e-books or whatever actually improves because of copyright protection is an empirical question. I've seen evidence that, with music, it does not. As far as I recall, two different groups came up with a way to measure the quality of popular music (or it may have been one group that came up with two different ways). The method was clever, but I've forgotten what it was. I'll try to Google it in a minute. Anyway, they looked at how the quality of music has changed over the past few decades and tried to measure the influence of piracy, if any. Their conclusion was that music was worse when copyrights were enforced better (which may have been coincidence rather than cause and effect).Hold on while I try to Google it quickly . . .

Here.

 

[dparker713]

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.

And I don't find it a metaphor. You took something of value from someone without their permission. Isn't that pretty much the definition of theft? The wrongful taking of property?

Theft, in legal terms, is a very broad category of offenses. Under common law the definition of larceny probably most accurately matches the common definition of theft. Larceny is the taking and carrying away the personal property of another with the intention to permanently deprive. Copyright infringement does not fit under this definition, as there is nothing to take and carry away. Nor does copyright infringement fit the statutory definition of theft in any state of which I am aware. That is why there are seperate laws that define and set forth the punishments for copyright infringement.

 

[dparker713]

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.

Digitial copies do not meet the generally accepted legal definition of a good.

Huh? They are protected property interests.

UCC§ 2-103. Definitions and Index of Definitions.

(k) <a name="Goods">"Goods" means all things that are movable at the time of identification to a contract for sale. The term includes future goods, specially manufactured goods, the unborn young of animals, growing crops, and other identified things attached to realty as described in Section 2-107. The term does not include information, the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities under Article 8, the subject matter of foreign exchange transactions, or choses in action

 

[Run It Up]

Let them enjoy their futile attempts to in any way hinder uploaders for p2p file sharing, it wont work, it will never work.The ISPs know the line they have to cross, and they will never cross it because the big providers would get eaten up by the small fish within months.Its only a matter of time before Google expands across the country in both directions and then we will see what the future of file sharing is, but until then have fun spinning your wheels.

 

[Christo]

I like how porn is totally left out of this. all those porn tube sites are just people ripping stuff off pay sites and reposting it for free. Willing to bet all you holier than thou people go to E all the time and look at the pics that rule. Tons of that is a copyright violation, hell probably 25% of it. And how Youtube gets away with what it does is also shocking. My wife used to buy stuff on itunes to use for whatever reason but now she just listens to it on youtube. All day I just see people using youtube, not for harlem shake, but for music. This is fine now? Is music piracy just no big deal anymore?Everything is just a matter of where you draw the line and where the distribution industry wants to draw the line. There's a gap. It will close but will take time.

Who has left porn out of it or said that it's fine?

 

[dparker713]

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.

Sure it does. There is no argument for natural law regarding intellectual property whereas robbery impacts personal safety.

Not if you just give it to me.

Just gonna ignore the threat/duress in your example, eh?

 

[Aerial Assault]

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.

Digitial copies do not meet the generally accepted legal definition of a good.

Huh? They are protected property interests.

UCC§ 2-103. Definitions and Index of Definitions.

(k) <a name="Goods">"Goods" means all things that are movable at the time of identification to a contract for sale. The term includes future goods, specially manufactured goods, the unborn young of animals, growing crops, and other identified things attached to realty as described in Section 2-107. The term does not include information, the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities under Article 8, the subject matter of foreign exchange transactions, or choses in action

Oof. The term "good" in my example above pertained to an item for sale, in a transaction probably governed by the UCC, to which intellectual property rights attached. I was, somewhat obviously, not arguing that an intellectual property right is the same thing as a good.

 

[shader]

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.

The "whole apparatus" is not outdated. It's firmly in place and isn't going anywhere. Spotify doesn't change that and won't change that.The "piracy is changing the paradigm" argument that many use is a pile of hogwash. Record companies aren't going anywhere. They control everything, from the advertising to the Grammy's. Justin Bieber was a youtube sensation, but nothing compared to what happened when he signed with a record company. No one becomes a major star unless they get a record deal. So piracy isn't changing anything, it's just stealing.

 

[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.

Sure it does. There is no argument for natural law regarding intellectual property whereas robbery impacts personal safety.

Not if you just give it to me.

Just gonna ignore the threat/duress in your example, eh?

My example in now way impacts your personal safety if you don't resist.

 

[Sarnoff]

IDEALLY... "fair use" starts to work its' way into the system. People should be allowed to upload cover songs, for example, their band playing a great version of a Rolling Stones song. And they should incorporate that into a licensing structure. Make it OK for someone to use a copyrighted song in their own video and put it online, as long as when they upload it they acknowledge who's copyrighted work is included... but when someone views it, credit the original copyright holder a portion based on what's been used. If someone uploads a funny dance video with the audio entirely a copyrighted song, half the profits go to the song's owners. If someone only uses a minute of copyrighted music in a 10 minute video, give the music owners 5%. Something like that.Solves the piracy issue and the copyright issues. It probably makes too much sense to ever happen.

A copyright is just as much about preventing someone from using your recording/music publishing as it is monetizing the use of a song/music.

True. I should have included in my description more detail about "licensing structure" and how it works. Basically that someone would have to authorize permission for a work to be available to be co-opted and put it out in that marketplace, with an appropriate rate structure attached. So The Beatles could charge you more than some lounge singer. But that "fair use" would be much more clearly structured than it is today.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In any case, we're having a sideshow discussion about labeling things that does not seem pertinent to the larger points. At all.

I think the difference between stealing stuff and copying stuff is morally relevant.I think stealing stuff, as a general matter, is always wrong. It doesn't take a convoluted argument to show that stealing is immoral. We all intuit it. The cases where stealing isn't immoral are exceptions to the general rule.

With copying stuff, it's the reverse. It's generally fine to copy other people's innovations; the cases where it's immoral to do so are exceptions.

For example, stealing is immoral whether or not it's against the law. Stealing is inherently immoral. But for the most part, I think copying stuff is immoral only if it's against the law. It's only contingently immoral. Absent any laws to the contrary, it's okay for me to copy your method of cracking coconuts, even without your permission, but it's not okay for me to swipe your actual coconuts.

I think obeying copyrights is in the same category, in that respect, as paying taxes. It's not immoral for me to refuse to pay taxes to the Iranian government, in part because there's no law requiring me to do so. It's also not immoral, IMO, for me to refuse to respect Iranian copyrights, again because there's no law requiring me to do so. (There's no international agreement along those lines between the U.S. and Iran.) But it would be immoral for me to go to Iran and steal somebody's car regardless of whether doing so were illegal. That's because stealing is inherently wrong, but copying isn't.

For copying to be morally wrong, IMO, it has to violate a reasonable law — a law that serves the common good. (Violating laws is not inherently immoral; those who violated the Fugitive Slave Act, for example, acted virtuously.) I think reasonable minds may differ on whether current copyright and patent laws, as applied in any given situation, serve the common good. But calling copyright infringement "theft" seeks to bypass that discussion and paint it as inherently (rather than as contingently) immoral. I think that's cheating.

 

[Run It Up]

I like how porn is totally left out of this. all those porn tube sites are just people ripping stuff off pay sites and reposting it for free. Willing to bet all you holier than thou people go to E all the time and look at the pics that rule. Tons of that is a copyright violation, hell probably 25% of it. And how Youtube gets away with what it does is also shocking. My wife used to buy stuff on itunes to use for whatever reason but now she just listens to it on youtube. All day I just see people using youtube, not for harlem shake, but for music. This is fine now? Is music piracy just no big deal anymore?Everything is just a matter of where you draw the line and where the distribution industry wants to draw the line. There's a gap. It will close but will take time.

Another guy who gets it.

While I agree to an extent about the hypocracy of the subject, I recognize that his example is awful.Everything, posted to youtube that is not a 1:1 representation of an actual digital product is considered art and is thus free from copyright infringement.Companies are still free to flag videos for copyright infringement and typically do not unless the video is damaging to their brand. Free advertising...This is a common theme in this discussion, as its been proven that most people that pirate software/music/video would not have paid for it regardless and thus the free advertising of using the product is a net gain.

 

[culdeus]

I like how porn is totally left out of this. all those porn tube sites are just people ripping stuff off pay sites and reposting it for free. Willing to bet all you holier than thou people go to E all the time and look at the pics that rule. Tons of that is a copyright violation, hell probably 25% of it. And how Youtube gets away with what it does is also shocking. My wife used to buy stuff on itunes to use for whatever reason but now she just listens to it on youtube. All day I just see people using youtube, not for harlem shake, but for music. This is fine now? Is music piracy just no big deal anymore?Everything is just a matter of where you draw the line and where the distribution industry wants to draw the line. There's a gap. It will close but will take time.

Who has left porn out of it or said that it's fine?

Take some time to read up on this.

 

[Christo]

I like how porn is totally left out of this. all those porn tube sites are just people ripping stuff off pay sites and reposting it for free. Willing to bet all you holier than thou people go to E all the time and look at the pics that rule. Tons of that is a copyright violation, hell probably 25% of it. And how Youtube gets away with what it does is also shocking. My wife used to buy stuff on itunes to use for whatever reason but now she just listens to it on youtube. All day I just see people using youtube, not for harlem shake, but for music. This is fine now? Is music piracy just no big deal anymore?Everything is just a matter of where you draw the line and where the distribution industry wants to draw the line. There's a gap. It will close but will take time.

Who has left porn out of it or said that it's fine?

Take some time to read up on this.

I read your post. Who has left porn out of it or said that it's fine?

 

[culdeus]

I like how porn is totally left out of this. all those porn tube sites are just people ripping stuff off pay sites and reposting it for free. Willing to bet all you holier than thou people go to E all the time and look at the pics that rule. Tons of that is a copyright violation, hell probably 25% of it. And how Youtube gets away with what it does is also shocking. My wife used to buy stuff on itunes to use for whatever reason but now she just listens to it on youtube. All day I just see people using youtube, not for harlem shake, but for music. This is fine now? Is music piracy just no big deal anymore?Everything is just a matter of where you draw the line and where the distribution industry wants to draw the line. There's a gap. It will close but will take time.

Who has left porn out of it or said that it's fine?

Take some time to read up on this.

I read your post. Who has left porn out of it or said that it's fine?

read the thread. This is about p2p, not tube sites, which are orders of magnitude worse violators.

 

[Christo]

I like how porn is totally left out of this. all those porn tube sites are just people ripping stuff off pay sites and reposting it for free. Willing to bet all you holier than thou people go to E all the time and look at the pics that rule. Tons of that is a copyright violation, hell probably 25% of it. And how Youtube gets away with what it does is also shocking. My wife used to buy stuff on itunes to use for whatever reason but now she just listens to it on youtube. All day I just see people using youtube, not for harlem shake, but for music. This is fine now? Is music piracy just no big deal anymore?Everything is just a matter of where you draw the line and where the distribution industry wants to draw the line. There's a gap. It will close but will take time.

Who has left porn out of it or said that it's fine?

Take some time to read up on this.

I read your post. Who has left porn out of it or said that it's fine?

read the thread. This is about p2p, not tube sites, which are orders of magnitude worse violators.

Who has left porn out of it or said that it's fine?

 

[McGarnicle]

The tube sites supposedly cooperate with the pay sites and remove their content, but the onus is on the pay sites to find and report offenses. And the pay sites allow certain content to sneak through for advertising purposes.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

While I agree to an extent about the hypocracy of the subject, I recognize that his example is awful.Everything, posted to youtube that is not a 1:1 representation of an actual digital product is considered art and is thus free from copyright infringement.

This is an absolutely incorrect statement of the law.

 

[dparker713]

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.

Sure it does. There is no argument for natural law regarding intellectual property whereas robbery impacts personal safety.

Not if you just give it to me.

Just gonna ignore the threat/duress in your example, eh?

My example in now way impacts your personal safety if you don't resist.

So in your world, anything goes as long as the opposing party retreats?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

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.

Cool. I don't feel like a #### for asking you to answer the guy's question without question begging now.I think it's OK to say that, as a matter of legal reasoning, you can't. I know I can't. I think the Supreme Court drew a line without any understanding of the consequences (understandable, considering the Supreme Court cannot predict the future).

 

[wazoo11]

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

link

 

[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.

Sure it does. There is no argument for natural law regarding intellectual property whereas robbery impacts personal safety.

Not if you just give it to me.

Just gonna ignore the threat/duress in your example, eh?

My example in now way impacts your personal safety if you don't resist.

So in your world, anything goes as long as the opposing party retreats?

Oh, I wouldn't give you the chance to retreat. I'd pop you even if you gave it up.

 

[wazoo11]

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.

Amazon's Music section is great. Love paying $2.99 for a full album.

 

[Run It Up]

While I agree to an extent about the hypocracy of the subject, I recognize that his example is awful.Everything, posted to youtube that is not a 1:1 representation of an actual digital product is considered art and is thus free from copyright infringement.

This is an absolutely incorrect statement of the law.

This is how it was presented to me in my E-commerce course, if you can find something that refutes this I would gladly concede.From what I understood when it comes to youtube, the content uploaded if it was made by someone is considered art. There was a couple of cases a year or so ago I believe where a guy was doing full length film commentary but the footage uploaded was not captured directly, he did it using a camcorder with which he did a perfect in frame shot of his television.Copyright flags were raised against him, his channel was brought down, he disputed them and won.Similarly people had uploaded videos that had nothing to do with media but were flagged for television being audible in the background, or for listening to music while they talked.These were all eventually thrown out and google developed a new stance towards copyright claims of infringement.Most copyright claims on youtube can be argued using these precedence, most pirating claims can be argued as file sharing - which isn't illegal.I'm sure in the fine print somewhere there is speech about modifying licensed media, but who enforces that? Is sharing modified media illegal? Technically it should be file sharing. Where is the line that separates copyrighted material from a reproduction, cause from what I gathered from my class, it is very generous and favors the consumer in every instance.

 

[GroveDiesel]

The tube sites supposedly cooperate with the pay sites and remove their content, but the onus is on the pay sites to find and report offenses. And the pay sites allow certain content to sneak through for advertising purposes.

And all those songs on Youtube have been flagged with the ad revenue going to the record labels. I can guarantee it. It's part of the agreement Google has with them.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

While I agree to an extent about the hypocracy of the subject, I recognize that his example is awful.

Everything, posted to youtube that is not a 1:1 representation of an actual digital product is considered art and is thus free from copyright infringement.

This is an absolutely incorrect statement of the law.

This is how it was presented to me in my E-commerce course, if you can find something that refutes this I would gladly concede.From what I understood when it comes to youtube, the content uploaded if it was made by someone is considered art. There was a couple of cases a year or so ago I believe where a guy was doing full length film commentary but the footage uploaded was not captured directly, he did it using a camcorder with which he did a perfect in frame shot of his television.

Simply producing a "transformative work" that is not identical to the previous work does not insulate you from a copyright infringement claim. For one famous example, we could look to Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 420 F.Supp 177 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 1976). In that case, it was claimed that George Harrison's song My Sweet Lord used two short musical motifs from the Chiffons' He's So Fine. Anyone listening to the songs can hear that they are not 1 for 1 reproductions of one another. But the court found that the two motifs incorporated into Harrison's chorus represented copyright infringement. There is a level of copying that courts will sometimes find de minimus, but that standard is difficult to quantify, and in any case, no court would find that anything that wasn't a 1 to 1 representation would meet the de minimusstandard. There are also fair use defenses available. It's complicated. But please don't ignore that DMCA take down notice just because you didn't copy an entire song or show. That would be a bad move.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I think one thing is abundantly clear: our technology has rapidly outpaced the law and our verbiage surrounding this area.