tv-links.co.uk Shut Down

[Nikolas]

It's good that you admit that.  That's like my brother.  He says, "I can get it for free.  I don't give a shit about all the politics involved.  I can get it easily and free so I'm going to"  Congrats!!  That's great!  But I don't understand why/how some people (not anybody in particular) have a hard time accepting that I download mp3 for a specific reason.  People do have ideals that they believe in (this thread is a perfect example of that!)

Yes but your ideal that CD prices are too much, or that you do not like CDs at all, doesn't equal piracy, or "stealing" the tracks (<=notice the "" I don't fancy that word and don't believe it's stealing, just to mention that)

Yet again, you would make a moral, ethical, reasonable stand by NOT buying CDs and proclaiming that you stop buying or downloading, until they lower the prices. If you download them you don't make a stand really, you just find a way to have fun, yourself and nothing else.

It's the same thing with DVDs, but for some reason, if I remember correctly you don't download movies. Because of the hussle. Wouldn't you think that the same situation, would suit the same ideals, and thus the same arguements, and the same results (pirating movies?) Why don't you pirate movies then?

In the end it's just that it's easy.

If a person pirates, they're on the side of the pirates.

Nope, they're on their selfs sides.

finally Darth,

I will give you the same promise I gave Nik ... produce something that I want to listen to and I'll gladly pay you for it as long as the money goes to you and I think it's a reasonable price.

I am doing exactly that, right now.

I've agreed with a great someone to make me the cover. I told him I might make money out of it (but few), and didn't think of selling, but if I do I will have to give him something, no? Shouldn't I pay him if I make any money? (<-my answer: yes! )
If I try to promote the CD further, like ads, and banners and stuff, shouldn't I pay for that? (<-my answer: yes! )

Now, if I try to make up the above expenses, I would have to put a certainly fair price for the CD, but, the money wouldn't go only to me, but to everyone else as well, either as prepaid ads and stuff, or even %.

So in the end, I don't have a chance of you buying my CD (if I ever sell it that is), as the money won't go only to me, will they?

[Becky]

I will give you the same promise I gave Nik ... produce something that I want to listen to and I'll gladly pay you for it as long as the money goes to you and I think it's a reasonable price

So what about the people who produce things that you want to listen to but the money doesn't go directly to them and you don't think it's a reasonable price?  You just...take it?  Why not just not take it at all, if your standpoint is all about fair prices and paying the artist.  As Nikolas said...you don't really make a point by saying "I only want to support artists that choose fair prices that I want to pay and the money goes to them but I'll just take all the others anyway."

[MrColossal]

So yes, lower prices are good. And even though MrColossal asked Darth, my answer is 10 bucks.

If a person pirates, they're on the side of the pirates.

A-fucking-men! Don't you just love hypocrits? 

Voh, 10 bucks sounds good to me too! But I think I can live with the 9 dollars the average album I want goes for on Amazon's new mp3 store. Check it out if you haven't.

Also, I'm not being a hypocrite, what I meant by not being on the side of the pirates was I don't buy into "music must be free" or "I'm taking a stand on music prices!" ideology of stealing. I'm a cheap lazy thief...

If one really wanted to take a stand that had more impact, wouldn't one want to deprive themselves of that service they were boycotting? If you don't want to give money to the big companies buy the album used from a record store, support the record store and get the music, awesome! Or deprive yourself of all music not morally purchasable and suffer for the statement. It's a stronger statement that way, in my opinion.

[Darth Mandarb]

So in the end, I don't have a chance of you buying my CD

Sure you do!

The money I'd be paying is still being paid to you, the artist.  What you choose to do with that money after I give it to you is entirely up to you!  How you choose to divy it up is entirely up to you.  If you have to give away all (or a lot of) the money to cover production costs then I would suggest you, perhaps, find a cheaper way to produce it

So what about the people who produce things that you want to listen to but the money doesn't go directly to them and you don't think it's a reasonable price?  You just...take it?

I'm not going to keep repeating myself . 

The answer can be found in many of the posts I've already made in this thread.

If one really wanted to take a stand that had more impact, wouldn't one want to deprive themselves of that service they were boycotting? If you don't want to give money to the big companies buy the album used from a record store, support the record store and get the music, awesome! Or deprive yourself of all music not morally purchasable and suffer for the statement. It's a stronger statement that way, in my opinion.

I totally agree, which is exactly what I'm doing.  I'm not against the cost of music.  I'm against the cost of CDs.  So yes, I don't buy them.  I find it a FAR stronger statement to obtain the music anyway without buying the CDs.  If you don't see it that way, so be it.  But wouldn't it be silly for me to do something based solely off somebody else's opinion on it?

[Nikolas]

But Darth, this is what happens with all companies and artists. They pay in advance, or pay %, exactly like I plan to do. what makes my effort different is that you "know" me, and I'm tiny, compaired to whatever band is out there.  Otherwise the business plan is pretty much the same, isn't it, just different figures (totally different)

[Darth Mandarb]

I see it as vastly different.

I'm tired.

[Becky]

I find it a FAR stronger statement to obtain the music anyway without buying the CDs.

Obtaining something you don't agree about the price of for free anyway implies you are greedy, rather than having a potent ideological standpoint

Also, I'm not being a hypocrite, what I meant by not being on the side of the pirates was I don't buy into "music must be free" or "I'm taking a stand on music prices!" ideology of stealing. I'm a cheap lazy thief...

Agreed.  Even though I do eventually buy the things I have downloaded, I'm still a cheap lazy theif and I know it and don't try to hide it.

[Darth Mandarb]

If a person pirates, they're on the side of the pirates.

Nope, they're on their selfs sides.

Which is the same side as all the other pirates.  Tuh-may-toe Tuh-mah-toe.

Obtaining something you don't agree about the price of for free anyway implies you are greedy, rather than having a potent ideological standpoint

But shouldn't I be the one to determine what I think, feel, or believe on my own?  You interpret it as greedy, I do not.  I'm not a greedy person (not accusing you of calling me that, you simply implied it).

[scotch]

Also, I'm not being a hypocrite, what I meant by not being on the side of the pirates was I don't buy into "music must be free" or "I'm taking a stand on music prices!" ideology of stealing. I'm a cheap lazy thief...

Admitting you do it while denouncing it as thieving just makes you an honest hypocrite I don't think what you do should be called that though, or even that it's a negative thing, seeing as you're someone that spends a reasonable amount on media you like.

Obtaining something you don't agree about the price of for free anyway implies you are greedy, rather than having a potent ideological standpoint

I can understand this, if it's assumed that the person gives up paying for creative products entirely. But I think enjoying a wide variety of things for free while supporting some of the creators as best you can is a reasonable approach to take if you think distribution methods have changed things so that a lower price, wider selection model is a better thing for both artists and society in general. It's not perfect, but as things are it's impossible to spread your budget out properly.

My life is richer for piracy, and artists are not losing out. I wouldn't be so negative about people that pirate in order to broaden their horizons. If you pirate in order to pay less, on the whole, to artists, then you are indeed a leech (much better term than thief in this context, imo, it doesn't so much have the implication of taking someone's property.)

Luckily I think most people want to support artists they like. Perhaps I have too much faith in them.

[MrColossal]

Also, I'm not being a hypocrite, what I meant by not being on the side of the pirates was I don't buy into "music must be free" or "I'm taking a stand on music prices!" ideology of stealing. I'm a cheap lazy thief...

Admitting you do it while denouncing it as thieving just makes you an honest hypocrite I don't think what you do should be called that though, or even that it's a negative thing, seeing as you're someone that spends a reasonable amount on media you like.

What about an honest thief? Or an unrepentant thief? I'm a thief dammit! I get in there, take the mp3s so quick that I leave the RIAA saying "What was that?! Huh... Musta been the wind..."

[RickJ]

First of all I would like to say that Nikolas should be commended for his forward thinking, his openness to unconventional ideas regarding his profession, and his willingness to actually try some of those ideas out.   It's quite easy to talk about what someone else should do to make a living but it's quite another thing to do it yourself.  Things are usually not as easy as they sound and especially so if the thing is new, unconventional, and unproven. 

It's not really that complicated.  You get something without paying for it when you should have, it is stealing ....

Many things can be said about copyright but "uncomplicated" is not one of them.   So when should you have to pay?

Recently a recording industry executive, who was asked under oath which of a list of downloadable mp3 files were infringing copyrights and which were legally offered for free download by the industry, testified that he would have to consult with an expert to make that determination.

Another recording industry executive recently, testified under oath, that copying a song from a legally bought CD to an MP3 player is a copyright infringement, meaning that you should have to pay for it.  Knowledgeable attorneys will tell you this is not mentioned anywhere in the copyright law nor supported by any case law.

Copyright
Copyright is a limited monopoly privilege granted to authors of creative works for the  purpose of promoting the creation of such works for the public good.   This is enshrined in case law and  the legislative history of copyright law from it's beginning in the US.  It's my understanding that it's been a long standing doctrine/opinion in the US court system that a  balance between the extent of privileges given to rights holders and the public good should be maintained.   Like a contract both parties agree to do (or not do) certain things in return for some benefit(s).

Length of Term - Copyright has a time limit which was originally 18 years.  This has been continually extended by US congress because of heavy lobbying (i.e. big $$ contributions) by rights holders to the point where it is now virtually unlimited.    I object to this for a number of reasons.  First of all creative works are not created in a vacuum, they draw upon popular culture which is in turn is influenced by other creative works.  So to some extent or other,  creative works contain public contributions, giving the public a stake in the final disposition of the work.   It is not unreasonable for the public to expect to be able to freely access such works at some point in time.

Orphan Works - Orphan works are those that have been abandoned by the rights holders to the public domain.  Until recently copyrighted works had to be registered with the government and periodically re-registered.  This made it easy to know if a work was copyrighted or not. Since it is no longer necessary to register a work to get copyright protection it is nearly impossible to know which works have been abandoned to the public domain by the rights holders and which have not.  The end result is that a huge number of works will not be preserved and will be lost over time.  To me this is unacceptable.  These things represent a snapshot of our culture, our history, and who we are/were at specific points in time.   Google for OTR or Old Time Radio programs and you will find a wealth of MP3s available.  Why?  Most, if not all, of these programs were never copyrighted because there was no perceived commercial value left after the initial broadcast.   If it had not been possible/legal for enthusiasts and collectors to make and share recordings of these shows would have been lost forever (actually many have been).  If you take the time to listen to some of these programs, after awhile you get a real feel of what life was like during the 1930s and 40s.  It's the closest thing to being able to travel back in time there is.    Many, many silent films have been lost as well as a number of Doctor Who episodes because of the rights holders lack of interest and care.  Had these been in the public domain it is likely they would have been preserved.  Actually many of the lost Doctor Who episodes have been reconstructed from materials that were "illegally" copied from TV by individual fans or film distributions "illegally" retained by broadcasters. 

Copyright Abuse - Abuse of the monopoly position to form cartels and fix prices is not allowed and anyone doing so can lose their copyright protection.  In rergard to the discussion about CD prices, I would ask why is it that when you go into a record store all CD's have exactly the same price?   Ok I will conceed that that there is usually a higher price for double CDs and boxed sets and a lower price for "Slim Whitman" and other similar acts.  Usually there are perhaps three price points A - new releases, B - Oldies, C - Crap,  and all, except for special editions etc, are labeled A, B, or C.  Go to a different store and the prices are the same.  How does this happen if there is no cartel, no abuse of copyright?   Imagine you went into a computer store and they had computers of every conceivable manufacturer and that no matter which manufacturer or model you looked at the price was either $600, $800, or $1200.  Wouldn't you be a little suspicious?  What if you went to another store and saw the same thing except their prices were $595, $795, and $1195, and another and another, etc.    In a free and open market where there is healthy competition there are as many different prices (of equivalent models/products) as there are suppliers.   When I hear people say that CD prices are too high, it means to me that they perceive the asking price to be far above the fair market price (the price set by a free market were it allowed to operate).   I suppose the question of whether this perception is reality could be a debate in of itself.  I tend to agree that there appears to be collusion in the music industry to limit competition and maintain prices and believe there is ample evidence to support this notion.  As in nearly all cases where a free market is not allowed to operate black markets quickly develop to fill the vaccum and that's all this "illegal downloading" really is.

Fair Use - Fair use of copyrighted works by the public is specifically allowed in the copyright laws.   What constitutes fair use is unfortunately vaguely defined.  The courts have some guidelines but no one really knows until a specific practice or act is brought to court and a judge applies the guidelines.  In the past this has been adequate because the public have not had the technological means available to them to fully exercise their fair use rights and until recently nobody ever filed copyright infringement lawsuits against individuals singled out from the general public.   Now there is a battle over our fair use rights.  On one side is the industry with their $$ politicians who want to usurp as much as our fair use rights as possible (preferably all of them) and us who want to preserve our fair use rights so that we can use whatever wizz bang technology that may come along to exercise those rights without permission or interference from the content industry.   

- DRM, this is an attempt to control how and how long a consumer can use legally purchased content.  I believe this is a particularly egregious violation of fair use rights because in many instances it causes harm to the consumers equipment (Sony rootkit for example) and foisted upon the consumer without his consent or knowledge.   I also provides a means of built-in obsolence.  Since MP3 files don't wear out or melt like CDs and cassettes there has to be another reason why the consume will want to buy the same content again and again.   To do this you only allow the consumer to make a couple of copies and then when MP3 is no longer all the rage or when he buys his fourth MP3 player he will have to buy the same content all over again.   Some DRM goes even one better and put an expiration date on the files themselves.

- EULA End User License Agreements, Usually these come with software and force the consumer to agree to them.  They generally have the effect giving rights to the content provider far in excess of what they are given via copyright protection.   "So what !" you may say, "I never read them and who gives a shit anyway? Nothing bad ever happens if people don't so what it says!".  That may have been true in the past but may not be true in the future.  If you are a Vista user you have given M$ the right to change they software on your computer whenever they want, stop your computer from working whenever they want, and spy on you whenever they want to check for license compliance or whatever else they want to check.   I think much is the same with Windows Genuine Advantage users as well and Windows Updates to a lesser extent.

- Backup Copies or copying to another device for playback, as mentioned above the content industry thinks this is not covered by fair use and is illegal.

- Time Shifting, It was established in the Sony Beta Max case that recording from TV or radio to playback at a later time is covered under fair use.   However, the content industry is trying to roll back this decision and have gotten at least one ruling from a lower court that can be interpreted to contradict the Beta Max ruling.   The are also trying to get congress to pass laws requiring all consumer electronics to include technology that will allow the content producer to disable parts of the equipments functionality while their content is being processed by the equipment.   I of course object most strenously to this because because I will have to pay the added cost of the technology and don't see why I should have to subsidize an already lucrative industry and because this restricts my fair use rights.   

- Transformative Usage, Copyrighted works can be used if the usage is transformative.  The best way to explain this is by example I guess.  I read a case about a guy who wrote a book that was more or less a historical or biographical account of (can't remember specifics) a musical group.  He gave a chronological account of their rise to fame and later decline.   As part of this account he gave thumbnail reproductions of album covers and concert posters.   There was a lawsuit over this and the judge ruled that the usage of the album and poster art was to document the historical facts while the original usage was artistic in nature and was therefore transformative and a non-infringing use of the material.   

- Free Speech,  Under fair use the public has the right to critique, satirize, or comment on or about copyrighted works and to reproduce portions of said works for these purposes.  However free speech issues go deeper than this.  Suppose you wanted to comment on something in a past time period.   For your commentary to be received in the way you intend you must first give the audience a context and a familiarity of the popular culture of the times.   Art, music, TV, magazines, newspapers, etc are both inspired by and reflect the popular culture at any given point in time.  Using these kinds of materials in a new work would be one of the most effective means of illustrating the popular culture of the subject time period.  Although I think this should be covered under fair use it is not clear that the courts would agree.  There are also some pretty good arguments that copyright is incompatible with freedom and free speech.  The founder of the freenet project has a pretty good essay on the topic here: http://freenetproject.org/philosophy.html.   He essentially makes the case that in order to enforce copyright on the internet you have to be able to monitor who is saying what to whom and that this is exactly what is needed to censor free speech.   If they don't like what you are saying and they know who you are they can shut you up.   Conversely, if they can't find out who you are they can't stop you from talking but they won't be able to enforce copyright either.

Is it stealing?
o Is it stealing if I download a file from the internet containing copyrighted material without paying for it?  If you have read my above comments you will understand that the question is unanswerable from the information given.   The answer depends upon a lot of things and it's not as simple as it seems on the surface to sort out.   The file may have been downloaded for any number of non-infringing uses of copyrighted works in which case the answer is no.  There are also many uses that are probably or ought to be non-infringing under fair use and/or transformitive use.  For example what if the person already owns the copyrighted material and  downloaded it because it was more conveint than ripping the CD?  What if I am studying music composition on the Phd level like Nikolas and I am doing research on the musical style of the Beatles (i.e. Why do the Beatles sound like the Beatles?)?  In this case the songs are downloaded so that they can be critically analysed to find some kind of recurring patterns, themes, chords, or other charistics that determine musical style. What if I now publish my thesis and include some excerpts of the songs so as to illustrate my findings?   Asking if this is this or that stealing is kind of like asking your accountant if you can deduct this or that from your taxes; there is no simple answer.   Is it stealing if I put family photos on a DVD slide show for my mom with some background music from CD which I legally purchased?

Btw accountants, at least the clever ones, have a clever way of answering this question "You can deduct almost anything you want as long as the total amount of deductions isn't too much!"  How much is too much?  Nobody knows but the IRS and they don't tell.  So what is commonly done is to keep deducting a little more each year to see how much you can get away with.  Keep enough money in the bank so that you can pay any additional taxes and penalties quickly and always make a couple errors not in your favor.

Here are some follow up "Is it stealing" questions for your contemplation ...

o Is it stealing if I give $$ to the legislature to change the law so that what used to be yours is now mine?   You have a cute little on house and some land on the beach.  I give some money to the mayor and the city council and they condem your property by right of eminent domain and give you the value of a cute little house.  They sell it to me for the same amount and I bulldoze the cute little house and build luxury condo's and sell the whole thing for 10 times the cost of the land and construction.  (re copyright term extensions and fair use restrictions)

o Is it stealing if I violate the law in such a way that forces people to give me more money?  I want to sell you some bananas for $5.00 per pound and you say but bananas only cost $0.50 a pound.  I tell you that if you don't pay $5.00 per pound Luigi will get angry and break your knees.  Or alternatively I tell Luigi to follow you around and if someone sells you bananas for less than $5.00 per pound to break their knees.  (re copyright abuse and price fixing)

o Is it stealing if I sell you something and then come back a couple years later and take it back or break it so you can't use it?  For example I sell you a car.  A couple of years later I would like to sell you another car so I come over one night and melt your engine.
(re DRM and root kits)

o Is it stealing if I sell you something that uses your stuff for my benefit without your knowledge or consent?  For example I sell you a car radio and install it for you.  I don't tell you but it's wired up so that whenever you are not using your car I can unlock it and drive it around for awhile.  (re DRM and root kits)

o Is it stealing if I force you to agree to a contract that only benefits me and obligates you?  I am the only person that sells cars.  You want to buy a car.  I say Ok but you have to sign this contract that says that I can come over and drive whenever I want, that I can add, remove, or change car parts whenever I want and not tell you, and if do anything to/with the car I don't like I can come over and melt the engine.  (re EULA, Vista, etc)   Not only that you can only drive on certain roads that I give you permission for.  (re DRM, fair use restrictions).

Conclusions
If top recording industry executives don't know if it is stealing or not without the help of expert legal counsel, children (and Darth )  can hardly be expected to know either.  Nor can anyone claim it is a simple matter to determine, IMHO.  But what really squishes my tookie is the fact that the content industry is using their clout $$ to erode the public's rights to use copyrighted materials in non-infringing ways.  Here is my wish list of things I would like to see changed.

Copyright Terms - Reduce the initial copyright term to 16 years.  Allow copyright to be extended to additional terms where each successive term is one half the length of the previous term and where the registration fee is twice the amount of the previous fee adjusted for inflation etc.  The minimum term would be for one year but the fee would continue to double year after year.  This would allow someone to extend their copyright as long as they were making a profit. The exponential nature of the registration fee structure tends to equalize the burdens placed on the small guy as compared to corporate monsters.  Everyone can get into the game for $10 and if they are still turning a profit after34 years the registration fee is still affordable at $1280.  Eventually everyone has to get out of the game and put their stuff back in the public domain.  I think this goes a long way to solving solving many of the issues surrounding orphan works, historical commentary, etc. 

Length of Copyright (yr)	Length of Term (yr)	Registration Cost ($)
16	16	$10
24	8	$20
28	4	$40
30	2	$80
31	1	$160
32	1	$320
33	1	$640
34	1	$1,280
:	:	:
40	1	$81,920
50	1	$83,886,080
60	1	$85,899,345,920

 
Fair Use and Transformitive Use - I would like to see fair use rights enumerated and include the following activities

- Allow the recording of any information transmitted over public infrastructure for personal or family use.  Public infrastructure to include airwaves, internet, public performances (not private performances).  This is currently the case law for TV and radio transmissions.

- Allow the the use of copyrighted materials for use in personal productions such as home movies, family photo slide shows, etc. 

- Allow incidental use of copyrighted material.  For example you make a documentary film  "What I did Last Thursday"  and so you film yourself walking downtown last thursday.   You walk through a park and there are a bunch of  kids singing happy birthday in the background. You walk by a pop machine an buy a can of coke.  You walk by the movie theather and ask some people, who are standing outside in front of the a bunch of movie posters, which movie they are going to see.  The posters, the song, and the art on the coke can are all copyrighted but have you should not have to pay for their use because you were simply recoding things routinely encountered in everyday life.   

- Allow the lending of materials by the general public.  Currently there are specific privelages given to public libraries.  The problem is that you and I cannot qualify as a public library and so are prohibited from lending content that we own on a large scale basis.  This is important because the internet is quickly becoming the largest library on the planet.  I see no justification in preventing people from lending content to one person at a time just like lending someone a book.  Only one person can read it at a time.  No matter how many people borrow your book you still haven't infringed anyone's copyright.  I would like to see the see the same concept applied to the internet. 

- Require "Medium Neutrality" in accessing broadcast royalties.  Currently royalties for internet broadcasts are prohibitedly expensive even for large companies.  Why should the internet be discriminated against. 

- Disallow DRM, EULAs, and other evil crap.

- Allow online card catalogs like the one Google is currently doing and getting sued over.

- Allow search engines and other websites to link to news and other stories published on the internet.  Damm those northern EU countries that sued Google because the search engine returned links to their news stories.  If I was Google I would have blacklisted them from their search and then charge them advertising rates to get off of it. 

- Allow individuals to record content for the purpose of review and analysis.  For example, got a coupon for $96 the other day from Sears.   It told us what a good customer we were and how they wanted to reward us.  They invited us to check off up to 12 crappy gifts to which we could apply the $96 coupon.  My wife wanted to do it for Christmas presents and thought that she would just have to pay the shipping.  I knew that this was not the case but I took me 20 minutes of reading this post card sized thing to finally find the one little sentence that said that they were going to charge her credit card the price listed for each and every item she selected.   My point is that it's easy to be fooled by clever language.  So when you hear or see something on the news on in a movie you really don't have an opportunity to go back to see and question what they really said.  You are only left with whatever reaction they wanted to provoke but can't really remember their reasoning or facts.  I think it's a good thing to be able to document what this politician or that news anchor said this year as compared to last year or last month. 

Summary
This post is far too long but is by no means comprehensive or complete.  I'm sure I could think of more things to say about it but I am just as tired of writing as you are of reading.  IMHO all the P2P file sharing shinola is simply a black market response to a cartel's obstruction of the free market.  The same cartel seeks to usurp fair use and other rights given  to the public by copyright but which have rarely been exercised due to lack of technological means.   I urge everyone to vigilent about your fair use rights and write to your legislators about your concerns.  You can bet the content industry is busy writing wining and dinning them.

P.S. I don't consider Darth to be a pirate but rather consider him to be engaging in civil disobedience.  Besides Matey, Err! Ye be no pirate if Ye be not talkin like a pirate.  Rrrrr! Only thems what is pirates be pirates and thems what ain't, ain't!   

[edit]
Here is where I get most of my news about copyright, etc
Recording Industry vs People
Groklaw

[Stupot]

I'm going to have to assume that was insightful, Rick.
It reminded me, I'm supposed to be writing an essay for Monday.

[Kweepa]

You can try to muddy the waters all you like, but it doesn't disguise the basic point that downloading without the consent of the copyright holders is stealing. Own up to it like Eric, or deny it (to yourself even) like Darth, but don't try to claim there isn't a crime, because when you get to court you will lose.

[voh]

By the way - downloading songs, movies and tv shows is entirely legal in the Netherlands. Uploading it is illegal.

So I'm not doing anything wrong by my own country's laws. How does that figure into the 'bigger scheme'? American copyright law is fine, but local laws override them. I'm not doing anything illegal, yet since it's illegal in the States, I'm a pirate?

It's confusing, really

[Darth Mandarb]

First off, Rick, very nice post.  Took me forever to read through it (and I'm sure I missed some) but still!  And yes, I respect Nik very much.  We see some things differently, sure, but in the end I respect him very much.

You can try to muddy the waters all you like, but it doesn't disguise the basic point that downloading without the consent of the copyright holders is stealing. Own up to it like Eric, or deny it (to yourself even) like Darth, but don't try to claim there isn't a crime, because when you get to court you will lose.

What, exactly, did I deny?  I owned up to the fact that I download, expressed the reasons why I do it,  and explained it MANY times.  And here, ONCE AGAIN, somebody tries to tell me that my reasons aren't real, that I'm doing it for the reasons THEY think.  *sigh*

By the way - downloading songs, movies and tv shows is entirely legal in the Netherlands. Uploading it is illegal.

It was, I thought, the same here in the States.  The people that are being busted are the ones offering the mp3, not the ones downloading them but I could be wrong.  I think it's silly to make downloading mp3 illegal.  If that's the case they better start arresting damn near everybody 'cause most people I know have, at one time or another, made a mix-tape (or CD) full of music and given it to somebody else or received a mix-tape (or CD) full of music they didn't pay for.  It's the same thing as uploading/downloading mp3.

[Nikolas]

Now Rick, that's one heck of a post! Very well done!

Of course I can assume that Rick, from what I've read, seen and chated is very conscious to what he does!

I won't go analysing every single paragraph you made, cause I'll die or something, but I can certainly comment on some things.

Basically indeed copyright and downloading has different parts and chances and ideas and "uses". There is this fair use (to which I believe educational use also is a part), and other stuff, only that usually, very usually to anyone with common sense fair use is quite clear and distinguished, and not use as an excuse.

I've been following very closely, with my own personal correspondance to UE the IMSLP.org case. IMSLP is quite clear that they want to be legal, and have done no harm and yet were foolishly attacked. On the other hand tv-links.co.uk is also clear that they don't mind being illegal, but are bassed on a mere legality to stand their ground (which didn't hold btw). For me these 2 different situations are quite clear to what they are.

Of course we are not discussing the Beatles (which, btw, I could take up money for my PhD, from my college and go buy everything, or borrow from the library of the collega), but Britney Spears, or... Spice Girls, or Beyonce, or (hey only females??? ) whoever else, which could difficult be anything else but "I downloaded it because it's a fun tune".

The industry is in huge trouble actually, and now that Radiohead (there were others before them btw), are contract free and went the reasonable way, everyone else is following, even NIN (there was a comment from Reznor...)

Things are changing and I can't see any other way for the future, than the CDs being there as promotional material (or mp3s even), and being given for free along with the newspapers or something. Sinec Prince did it with 2,500,000 copies of his new CD, why not everybody?

EULA is one thing that bothers me greatly, since I buy everything I use, and I'm SO insulted by those idiotic tihngs you have to agree to. Problem with those, and how it started, is that they first thought that "Oh shit! If they buy the program, they can sell the code! If they buy the sames they can sell the samples", so they went "Ok! They will buy a LICENSE!" Yiiiiha! And then they started "but, educational versions can't be used commercially", or "you can't resell your license " (everything in life can be bought second hand, except software, at least in music), and other moronic stuff,which are there just for greed and nothing more. And they simply don't see that a company allowing resales will bring the customer back. They can't see that.

Stealing:

On the eye of the law, although I don't agree with the word, I would assume that yes. Indeed anyone using rip graphics from MI (Which is SO trendy all those years ) is doing something illegal, only noone bothers. It makes sense. Same if I make a mix tape for my girlfriend (not my wife, my girlfriend! ;D), or if I make a small video with my kids on and put a bit of music on. Fortunately the industry is NOT that insane!

But illegal? I guess it is.

I, personally, find it far worst that people can buy to bend the laws, or anything close to that, which happens ALL THE TIME. Being slightly illegal (although hardcore defenders will say you're either legal or not, end of story), is nothing wrong really, and I've yet (as Darth says) to find anyone Saint.

Also Rick, you are talking about copyright, but copyright in Europe (and I do think that in Canada+USA) is automatic, and happens the minute the art piece is concived. This is all nice and dandy, and is no problem really. I wouldn't like to see the loss of copyright for any living artist. But holding the copyright for 50-70 years after the death of the composer, is an insult to any intelligent human being, as well as donkeys, monkeys and anything else, who would also understand the idiocy of that system.

I mean, Rachmaninov, Ligeti, Schnittke, etc, are all dead and all still copyrighted. Why *** fuck are they copyrighted? (I know the answer, don't think I'm asking! )






In all, as you can see I'm right in the middle and pretty conscious to what's happening right now in the world.



The only problem I don't like to see and this triggered this thread (by me), is when people go "Oh! they shut tv-links.co.uk, the bastards"... Wait, wait a minute... It wasn't exactly legal and it really helped faciliate all those links getting together etc, etc. And it had NO OTHER use, than that, but only that (as opposed to google which is exactly what you use it for, not only for stgreaming videos and illegal, and also youtube, which, yes has copyrighted material, but also Nightfable puts videos on, and I do, etc, which are mine to put). Tv-links had no other use than to viewing copyrighted material, even if they were not hosted there. So I kicked a bit to this thread.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

The people that are being busted are the ones offering the mp3, not the ones downloading them but I could be wrong.

Yes, you are wrong on this point.  You can be sued for downloading copyrighted mp3's without paying for them and it has happened before (a few fileshare programs with community servers had to release lists of ips connecting to them and many of those people were sued).  It's not always difficult to prove if you paid for an mp3 or not since internet access is kind of like leaving a paper trail, and someone with the right tools (like the FBI) can check your monthly usage and other details.  And if you think I'm paranoid about the FBI, let's just say that my nephew went to a government job interview and they asked him a question like 'Have you ever looked at naked pictures of a girl' so he answered that he had without thinking about the question (he thought girl=adult).  The FBI promptly raided his house and confiscated his computer under this crazy overzealous idea that he was a pedophile.

Trust no one!

[RickJ]

I not an expert on this subject but I have been following the SCO vs IBM litigation closely for the past several years on the Gorklaw blog and have learned a bit.  They are very professional over there and give careful and thoughtful analysis of the events.  The analysis and much of the commentary comes from former paralegals, attorneys, and technology professionals rather than disgruntled teenagers. 

I don't condone blatant copyright infringement and I am sorry if my last post give that impression.  My passion lies with the preservation of the public's fair use rights and sane public policy regrading copyright, the internet, and emerging technologies.  Blatant copyright infringement only exacerbates the problems.

I've been following very closely, with my own personal correspondance to UE the IMSLP.org case. IMSLP is quite clear that they want to be legal, and have done no harm and yet were foolishly attacked. On the other hand tv-links.co.uk is also clear that they don't mind being illegal, but are bassed on a mere legality to stand their ground (which didn't hold btw). For me these 2 different situations are quite clear to what they are.

I don't know anything about tv-links.co.uk except what I have read in this thread.  It would seem to me that tv-links crossed the line by the it's links were maintained.  From reading this thread I surmise that webmaster was knowingly posting links to infringing materials and therefore actively encouraging and facilitating copyright infringement activities by others. 

The industry is in huge trouble actually, and now that Radiohead (there were others before them btw), are contract free and went the reasonable way, everyone else is following, even NIN (there was a comment from Reznor...)

I firmly believe the real motivation behind the RIAA lawsuits is fear of becoming obsolete rather than fear of losing sales to file sharing.  The reason recording companies exist is that historically individual artists did not have the capitol required to produce, promote, and distribute their products.  With current PC technology, the internet, a paper route, and a little bit of talent a 16 year old kid could afford to produce an album, promote it, and distribute it to the entire planet.  CD manufacturing facilities, recording studios, distribution channels, etc, etc all as useful as buggy whips.

The reason I posted earlier is that many comments seemed to me to be based on greatly oversimplified notions of copyright law and I wanted explain that with copyright things are not as simple as our intuition tells us that they ought to be.  A great number of cases are making hteir way through the US court system and many unanswered questions will get answered on way or another.  It will be interesting to watch what happens and in the end I think a lot off the mess will get sorted out. 

Also Rick, you are talking about copyright, but copyright in Europe (and I do think that in Canada+USA) is automatic, and happens the minute the art piece is concived. This is all nice and dandy, and is no problem really.

It's also automatic in the US.  However you have to register the copyright before you can file an infringement lawsuit.   The problem with the automatic protection is that without registration it's not possible to know which works are orphaned and which are not.   The result is that orphaned works will eventually be lost to the rubbish bin of history.   I would be in favor of a system where you get automatic protection for the first 16 or so years and then be required to register after that. 

I wouldn't like to see the loss of copyright for any living artist. But holding the copyright for 50-70 years after the death of the composer, is an insult to any intelligent human being, as well as donkeys, monkeys and anything else, who would also understand the idiocy of that system.

I can understand this point of view especially from someone working in the UK.  I am not exactly clear on this but isn't there something in British law about copyrights staying with the author?   In the US the copyrights are usually assigned by the author to the author's employer.   Since corporate entities end up being the rights holders over here extending the term to the life of the author doesn't have much meaning.  It's also not really fair to old people who produce their greatest works near the ends of their lives.  They ought to be able to leave something behind for their families.   In the little table I suggested the amount of  the initial registration fee and initial term length could be adjusted to get results closer to what you would consider to be fair or acceptable. 

[ShiverMeSideways]

* takes 2 cents out from under his bed *

I may be speaking out of my arse, since it's late, and I need to sleep, and I only read like the first 1.5 pages of the thread, but here's my take on the piracy thing...

Indeed, it's not the end of the world if I don't get this year's Megadeth or Apocalyptica album, but the thing is, and I hate to invoke poverty again, that I can't really buy any album. Sure, I can save up two month's money and buy one CD. One Romanian band's CD. Fair enough, let's calculate something... Let's say that in one year's time, I'd buy 6 CDs. 6 Romanian CD's. How does that help me, really? I'm very passionate about my music, and I seriously love to listen to music all the time, I can't stand sitting in my room while it's quiet. I always have been like this, so you can't say that because I was introduced to pirated music, I got hooked... For me, it's always been a case of wanting and not getting. Also, not everything is available here for buying... For example, where in the hell am I going to get Pink Floyd's 1967 album, The Piper at the Gates of Dawn? Not to mention that Romania's shops aren't really that big on rock music, let alone metal. I saw one day, I remember, in a shop, Megadeth's Peace Sells ...But Who's Buying? album, dusty, thrown on a shelf (and this is a major shop mind you), only 40 lei (two month's allowance). Next, I saw some fucking two-bit Romanian pop tramp's single, 60 lei. This is absurd, if we're going to have overpriced albums, at least put some value into it! This is another thing that annoys me about buying albums.

Sure, when I'll have the money, I'll go clean, I really plan to buy albums legally...

There just simply is no way to get discografies legally, especially since legal albums do not include everything, while the pirated ones tend to have more... Where would I be without my music today? I'd be incredibly close-minded, and sitting in the silence of my room. I remember FSi said that real-life albums are in limited supply, and internet ones are unlimited, and that's why they're pirated. I totally agree with this. I would never have got Iris' (Romanian Hard Rock band) pre-1996 albums if it weren't for torrents, and for that I thank the gods of the Internet.

Although it's a luxury, I consider music a must-have luxury for the open mind. Sure, I'm not pleading a case for movies and tv shows, hell, most of them are shit anyways, but music, people?

So yeah, fuck it, when the new Metallica album gets released, people can destroy shops and murder themselves over it, but I'll be listening to it ten days before them, constantly adding to my musical experience.

Also, I don't really download new, and small stuff, most of it is free anyways, I just get the big boys' albums, and I seriously think all the major bands have enough mountains of money with which to wipe their arses, so why must I be denied an open mind, a cultural experience, and a chance to understand better my favourite band? Although I illegally downloaded their discography, that doesn't mean I respect them any less. Hell, I respect them infinitely more, because I got a chance to listen to them, hence my respect is not 0.

That's everything I have to say on the matter at this late hour...

PS: I'm sorry if this doesn't make any sense, I'll try and post tomorrow with something that isn't written at 12:30 AM...

[covox]

Hah, there's a reason why Australia is listed by surveys (which are always biased, but yeah) as the TV piracy capital of the universe. Granted, it's probably aimed squarely at sad people who only watch Heroes and Lost and Prison Break and all that other rubbish, but there's a grain of truth that Australians think that the television planning people are doing a crap job and BitTorrent does it a lot better. Right now I'm watching Top Gear which aired last Sunday evening in the UK, normally I'd be waiting for 18 months for the semi-privatised SBS to air the same show with station ads spliced in and the news section cut out.

As for music, the whole "is uploading or downloading the real crime" argument is pointless. That doesn't address the moral dimension of whether you're supporting the artist or not.

My system works like this:


(sorry if the largeness of the image offends someone, several other posts in this thread are bordering on ninety pages too!)