Just Under 100,000 Sued In Mass Copyright Infringement Suits Since Start Of 2010
from the out-of-control-yet?-Mass-Copyright-Infrigment-Suits-Filed-Against-Nearly-100,000 dept
We've been covering the mass copyright infringement lawsuits being filed in the US over the past year or so. Most of them aren't designed with the idea of actually taking anyone to court, but mainly to threaten people into "settling" (i.e., paying up) to avoid the lawsuit. A "concerned citizen" hoping to remain anonymous has taken the time to put together an amazingly detailed spreadsheet cataloging all of these lawsuits. He claims that he will continue to keep it updated. One stunning point from the data? Between January 1, 2010 and now, 99,924 "John Does" have been sued in this manner. If I don't hurry up and publish this post, I imagine we'll have already passed 100,000.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, lawsuits, pre-settlement
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If these lawsuits were having any effect at all, the piracy rate should have fallen dramatically. If it hasn't dropped enough for the industry to have noticed and brag about how effective this tactic is, then what is the purpose other than making some attorneys rich?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When there's no more money to be made in keeping the status quo by the politicians with the power to effect change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or, does innocent until proven guilty not work in your world, where profit and protecting unworkable business models means more than the right of individuals? Yeah, it's you so I know your answer, and I know you're a big part of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
protecting unworkable business models
LOL, where have I heard this before...
http://www.betanews.com/article/Joel-Tenenbaum-admits-downloading-music-found-guilty-of -copyright-infringement/1249034198
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Please note that I'm not saying that *all* of these individuals are innocent, nor am I even claiming that the majority are. But, there's enough of a question about the accuracy of the accusations (again - accusations, not convictions) to make this a major problem.
Oh, and I'm not sure what Tenenbaum has to do with all this. Let me guess, you're going to dismiss all opposing points of view because a single individual on the "other side" did something wrong? No wonder you're a self-admitted failure in your industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You really need to get your cliches in order.
Including the one about thinking you know what I do for a living...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All kidding aside, the "let’s get thousands of John Doe's and sue the shit out of them" method has been demonstrated to be a comedy of errors... who's only success has been in the intimidation of those who caved to what many have described as strong-armed thuggery and a protection-racket extortion scheme... and this is the better alternative to using 'free' as a successful business model? Are you just plain mean? Are you adversarial by nature and the stance you take is based on your need to vent aggression and not on some high-moral stance on giving artists their due?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wish you did, I honestly do. Then, you might start by admitting the faults with your industry's models (such as artificially restricting product to make it less valuable than "pirated" goods) and then listening to what people are actually asking for.
"Including the one about thinking you know what I do for a living..."
Assuming you're the same "Anonymous" I've been arguing with for months about the same faulty assumptions, conclusions and unjustified personal attacks, then I know what you claim to do for a living (musician who represents other musicians).
If you're not that guy, might I suggest a better name, or preferably a login so you don't get confused with other who hold your same faulty assumptions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If "ripping things off" is better for the public than being sued en masse, perhaps it's time for the silly politicians to do their jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, seriously, anyonee who thinks that lobbying isn't simply legalised bribery is a fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time for the police to step in?
I think the rhetorical answer that many want to hear to this rhetorical answer is, "Aw heck. Let's forget about copyright altogether. Let the kids take whatever they want. Commons never get depleted."
But another answer is for the government to set up some agency that polices the area and dishes out automated speeding tickets -- in this case automated infringement tickets to people. Be careful what you wish for. Lawsuits are slow and expensive for everyone on both sides of the equation. Automated fines can be added to your monthly bill just like they are with parking tickets.
Since abandoning copyright would be very destructive for everyone except the cheap, lazy couch potatoes who can't pay 99 cents for something, I see automated infringement tickets being the next big thing. And everyone who complains about the $150k fine for infringement can now have some minor amount added to their monthly bill-- an amount of the size of a parking ticket. It will be so small that all of the potheads up at Harvard Law won't bother to step in to defend people and everyone will just pay the fine because it's cheaper than hiring a lawyer. So be careful what you wish for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time for the police to step in?
The CopyRight Automated Police have added $0.99 to your next monthly Internet bill for copying text from a techdirt.com blog post into your comment on the techdirt.com thread found at http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110129/23354512882/just-under-100000-sued-mass-copyright-infringe ment-suits-since-start-2010.shtml
Please pay you bill promptly and have a nice day!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time for the police to step in?
Citation definitely needed. Besides, the argument is usually not that copyright is inherently bad, but the way in which it's currently set up and enforced is unworkable and counter-productive. There's a very wide gap between the current system and nothing at all, please stop pretending it's a binary option.
Also please stop trying to pretend that everybody who complains is a "pirate", "cheap", "lazy" or a "pothead". It makes you look pretty stupid, and announces to the world that you haven't thought through the realities of the current situation. Dismissing anybody who disagrees out of hand is not a good way of reaching an agreement or solution to a clearly broken system.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure that simply fining people with the same level of "evidence" they have now would be quickly shut down - or have the opposite effect (indicating to people that it's OK to "pirate" if you just agree to pay the small fine if caught). Speeding fines at least have some kind of evidence behind them and an actual reason for existence, even if they're sometimes misused (i.e. safety and protection of peoples' lives, as opposed to protecting a theoretical profit margin for a broken business).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time for the police to step in?
[citation needed]
And be sure to address the fact that economies and innovation have existed long before copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time for the police to step in?
Having fun beating your straw man over there?
I'm pretty sure what you described is in fact a much better alternative to the current system. Parking ticket style fines similar that are actually within an order of magnitude to actual damages, as opposed to punitive fines equivalent to 20 years median gross income, or extortion letters amounting to several months rent/mortgage payments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Time for the police to step in?
Anyone who's lived in a big city can tell you horror stories about the mechanized justice.
I'm not so sure that automatically dunning people for $100 or $300 is that much nicer. The amounts add up quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Time for the police to step in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Neglecting all the other laws to favor one in particular.
Unfortunately, many of us are familiar with this topic and realize that one does not need to "abandon copyright" in order to allow for a meaningful standard of justice.
Justice simply does not require consequences that are out of step with the rest of our own Constitution.
Let corporations due for actual damages as is the case for any other Tort. Let them do it in the proper fashion too.
Applying standards intended to be applied to commercial bootlegging operations to individuals is simply absurd. So are BitTorrent style legal cases that don't even establish proper jurisdiction.
There are plenty of legal points of contention here if you really are a "law and order" sort of person.
Although in the end: Art infact suffers from the attentions of bean counters and robber barons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Neglecting all the other laws to favor one in particular.
In order to make it work, you would need ISPs to absolutely, positively identify users rapidly (same day) without a court order, perhaps being the middlemen for the tickets. Every day that something like this drags in court adds hundreds of dollars to the bill. Someone has to pay that, and it won't happen with $10 settlements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Neglecting all the other laws to favor one in particular.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Neglecting all the other laws to favor one in particular.
Just having someone on staff at say net $20-25 an hour with bennies can cost into the hundreds to spot and track down a pirate. This isn't easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time for the police to step in?
All this is just thrashing around hoping something will work.
The fact is that copyright was invented in a world where the cost of copying equipment was beyond the pocket of ordinary people and the economics of copying made no sense other than as a commercial - for profit - exercise. In that world few could copy, they had to make their activities public in order to sell their output.
That world is now gone.
Policing copyright now requires either the legally enforced crippling of all copying technology or a police state that would make Stalin drool with envy.
If you can't see that neither of these is either desirable or sustainable then I don't know how to reason with you.
The only remaining options are the abandonment of copyright or continuing the current situation where following the law is effectively voluntary for all but the most high profile of enterprises.
I feel that this situation is desperately unfair for those who try to keep within the law but are not direct beneficiaries of it. They get all the DRM pain,the risk of being falsely accused and have to bear the cost of what policing is being done (borne either through taxes, ISP fees or increased prices of "content").
I don't think they get a fair deal and therefore I favour abolition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Time for the police to step in?
Nope. Copyright was invented once the development cost of the material became greater than the cost of reproduction. There was no need for copyright when monks did the work. Once copying became cheaper, there needed to rules to constrain the folks with the printing press. Now that everyone can make copies, the rules are being examined because the regular people don't like to be constrained by the same rules that constrain companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Time for the police to step in?
But the printing press was still beyond the means of most ordinary people at the time. Plus the work of typesetting was far more time consuming than making a manuscript copy. (Ever tried hand typesetting 17th century style?). It only made sense to print if you were making lots of copies. I repeat, it made no sense other than as a for profit enterprise. This is very different to the current situation in which it is cheap to make a single copy for one's own use.
Actually it was the people with the printing presses that demanded the rules. They initially wanted (and received) a monopoly of all printing (which suited the government as a potential censorship mechanism.) Later, when the government became more liberal they allowed the monopoly to lapse. The printers then lobbied for the original 14 year copyright as a replacement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time for the police to step in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time for the police to step in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical copyright maximalist response. "Let's get the government to do it for us." The same government that is elected by the people and SUPPOSED to PROTECT the people. I want my tax dollars to be spent protecting citizens from frivolous actions, not funding even bigger government in the form of a new "agency" created to persecute the citizens for a few companys' personal gain.
"It will be so small that all of the potheads up at Harvard Law won't bother to step in to defend people and everyone will just pay the fine because it's cheaper than hiring a lawyer."
The EFF and others would still be all over this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
asking for some enforcement is not maximalist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: asking for some enforcement is not maximalist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gracias
Please pass on my personal thanks to the person responsible for putting this together. Thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why don't we throw in the cousins, the pet dog, and the cable guy because they were around? No one has to declare a copyright, no that was to expensive to keep doing so now everything created is default copyrighted? Better go back outside, the baby has been on the ground more than long enough to get dry.
When the copyright industry gets it's wish and changes the net over to the nice organized market, I'll do with out it, just like I do without TV as a matter of choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was just reading about Blackbeard :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey Mike, I'm curious what you mean by this last sentence. Exactly what is broken with the law that these lawsuits demonstrate? Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My guess is that he just plays to the crowd because that keeps the ad page meter turning. Then he relies upon trolls to keep the crowds inflamed. But you won't find a concrete answer from him. If someone steals your car, you don't call the cops. You blame yourself and set out looking for a new business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your comment also makes me wonder: why are you here? If you're so offended by the posts whose content you clearly don't (or won't) grasp, why do you contribute? I know I don't contribute to people whose tactics I don't like, such as the major labels. Then again, my protests are usually dismissed as "losses through piracy", even though they're nothing of the sort...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And I'm sort of wondering why you're here. If you want to hear your own thoughts repeated and validated, why don't you just type into a word processor and give yourself a pat on the back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
All evidence today suggests that as copyright has become less well respected MORE content is being created and MORE people are making money from making content.
Reality's a bitch. You might want to try checking out reality some time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you didn't. You stated an unsubstantiated opinion that bears no resemblance to my interpretation of the same data. I would ask you to elaborate, but I get the feeling you're another one of those people who ignores threads once you're proven incorrect or asked for further details.
I can happily discuss why I think the system is broken, my preferred solutions to this situation and discuss said solutions and alternatives. But, defenders of the status quo like youself often just want to ignore or attack those with differing opinions.
"the creators will slowly disappear when art turns into a hobby"
Provable bull, not to mention that this assumes that creators can only be professionals under the current system - also provably untrue.
"And I'm sort of wondering why you're here."
To attempt discussion with people on subjects in which I very interested and hopefully learn something in the process. Past discussion here has opened my eyes to a large number of interesting innovations, which have led to a change in the way I consume certain media and helped me articulate what I think the problem with the major corporations' tactics are. I learn things here, by discussion with others.
I'm just not that interested in such discussion with people who deliberately misrepresent myself or others' opinions or try to present anybody not in support of the current, demonstrably broken, system as "pirates" or "clueless". Simply saying "you're wrong" or creating straw men is a sadly common tactic here among the pro-corporate crowd. If I repeat myself, it's because I'm attack the same tired strawmen, lest newcomers here be taken in by their creators' lies.
Why are you here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you've got 100,000 people on the wrong side of the law then it's not sustainable. No nation can afford that much litigation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Trust me. Make the internet user responsible for their actions and liable in a simple fashion, and the legal situation will resolve itself VERY quickly, there won't be very many cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There is absolutely no reason to suppose that this is even vaguely possible.
If ISPs did as you suggest then all that would happen is that the file sharing networks would move over to encrypted systems like Freenet.
I have seen this silly dance happen before and I know that it never ends with the "authorities" winning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When 100,000 are being sued for breaking a law in approximately a year (and those lawsuits are only coming from a few companies) it indicates that the law is broken. 100,000 people all deciding to do something suggests that it is not considered wrong or bad, and thus we should be questioning whether the law is set up correctly.
Separately, in this case, the fact that very few of those 100,000 will actually have a lawsuit go through, and that this entire game is being setup to shake people down for money should trouble you quite a bit.
Of course, if you think "the law is the law and that's ok" then I can see why you wouldn't be troubled by this. But I'd like to think you're not that kind of person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Separately, in this case, the fact that very few of those 100,000 will actually have a lawsuit go through, and that this entire game is being setup to shake people down for money should trouble you quite a bit.
Of course, if you think "the law is the law and that's ok" then I can see why you wouldn't be troubled by this. But I'd like to think you're not that kind of person.
These lawsuits don't tell us anything we don't already know about the number of people who pirate stuff on the internet. It's not like anyone reading the headlines is saying to themselves, "Oh wow! That many people are pirates?" If anything, I think the vast number of pirates reflects how poorly our copyright laws are being enforced. These lawsuits aren't a call for less copyright laws, they are a call for better enforcement of the laws we already have.
I doubt that many pirates consider themselves to be doing the world a favor with their piracy. I think they do it because their friends are doing it, it's easy, and hardly no one's getting busted. Once people start to get busted, I think that attitude will change.
While you may not value our copyright laws, the fact is, many people do. The number of people who don't pirate is much bigger than the number of people who do. This suggests to me that the copyright laws are not as out-of-whack with the social norms as you seem to be suggesting they are.
Perhaps more people understand that copyright laws in fact do incentivize the creation of works than you give them credit for. And you know what the beautiful thing is? If people want to give away their creations for free, they can do so right now.
People can try out your business models all day long within the system we already have. I like people to have the choice of copyrighting, of not copyrighting, of selling, or of giving it away for free. I like that people have that choice. You apparently do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What these lawsuits show is how silly it is to try and enforce the law, how much time and effort we would have if we tried to enforce it completely.
The fact is that you can't enforce copyright law without a policeman looking over the shoulder of everyone who is typing at a computer. At best you will make piracy invisible - but you can't stop it. Every measure the authorities could use to stop piracy already has a countermeasure waiting in the wings for when it is needed.
You can force pirates to encrypt their content and disguise it as other traffic but all that will do is waste everyone's time and money.
I agree with you that these lawsuits don't tell us anything we didn't know already - but they do bring it into sharper focus.
I doubt that many pirates consider themselves to be doing the world a favor with their piracy. I think they do it because their friends are doing it, it's easy, and hardly no one's getting busted. Once people start to get busted, I think that attitude will change.
Their attitude will change - instead of being a casual thing they will see it as a challenge to outsmart the authorities.
While you may not value our copyright laws, the fact is, many people do.
Surprisingly few actually. Even fewer amongst those who have given the subject some thought.
The number of people who don't pirate is much bigger than the number of people who do.
Well I'm not sure about that. The number who rely on piracy as a major source of entertainment is relatively small, whilst the number who absolutely never pirate is probably zero beyond the age of about 10. (As witnessed by the fact that many who scream about piracy have been caught doing it themselves.)
In between there are many people who do it occasionally, with varying frequency.
This suggests to me that the copyright laws are not as out-of-whack with the social norms as you seem to be suggesting they are.
Well, in my experience I am often surprised at the people who think piracy is OK (for them) (including for example police officers...). I've never met anyone who thought it wrong enough never to do it who didn't have a personal stake in copyright.
Perhaps more people understand that copyright laws in fact do incentivize the creation of works than you give them credit for.
Never met anyone who believed that in real life. All the creative people I know do it because they are driven - money is an afterthought, copyright even more so. I remember a music teacher at my sons school, talking about a particularly talented pupil and saying. "You don't have to encourage him to compose - sometimes it is difficult to stop him composing!" The Beatles are on record for saying "We didn't think music could be owned - we thought it was just out there..."
And you know what the beautiful thing is? If people want to give away their creations for free, they can do so right now.
Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. If even a tiny bit of your creation is based on someone else's work you will find it almost impossible to get clearance to give it away. Ask Nina Paley.
Plus all the measures against filesharing are breaking the distribution networks of those who want to give their work away. DRM measures built into computers and game consoles often make independent development unnecessarily difficult. Try writing a PS3 game and giving it away.
On top of that you will find many copyright advocates complaining about people who give their work away - because they are undermining the cartel. In this vein the BSA has complained about open source and the music rights societies have complained about musopen.
People can try out your business models all day long within the system we already have. I like people to have the choice of copyrighting, of not copyrighting, of selling, or of giving it away for free. I like that people have that choice. You apparently do not.
I wouldn't mind that choice if it was a real one.
Unfortunately many copyright advocates are not like you. They are hell bent on stopping people giving stuff away even if they legally can.
The reason is that they realise correctly that it really is an all or nothing situation. At present 90% plus of recent material is copyrighted "all rights reserved". Therefore if you want to re-use something you have to seek out a licence to do so.
This makes it difficult for free distributors because they have to plaster their output with cc notices to make their point.
If the situation were to reverse - so that "free" became the default then life would be impossible for those who want to maintain copyright - since they would have to assume the whole burden of policing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We're only seeing the beginning of the enforcement of copyright laws against p2p users. I doubt lawmakers will see enforcement as silly anytime soon. I see no reason to think that lawmakers won't give rights holders better tools to protect their rights.
The fact is that you can't enforce copyright law without a policeman looking over the shoulder of everyone who is typing at a computer. At best you will make piracy invisible - but you can't stop it. Every measure the authorities could use to stop piracy already has a countermeasure waiting in the wings for when it is needed.
I don't think anyone in the history of the copyright wars has ever thought that piracy can be stopped 100%. I don't know why people on "your side" of the debate even bring up the point. Of course it will never totally be stopped. The goal is to minimize it. Every measure the authorities use pushes piracy further underground. That's the whole point.
You can force pirates to encrypt their content and disguise it as other traffic but all that will do is waste everyone's time and money.
The harder it is to pirate, the less people will do it. Again, that's the point of combating the pirates. It may seem like a waste of time and money to you, but to people who believe in IP laws and rights, it's money well spent.
I agree with you that these lawsuits don't tell us anything we didn't know already - but they do bring it into sharper focus.
The lawsuits bring into sharper focus the uphill battle that rights holders have to protect their rights. It shines light on the need for lawmakers to give rights holders better tools to combat those who just take what they want.
Their attitude will change - instead of being a casual thing they will see it as a challenge to outsmart the authorities.
And the harder it is to outsmart the authorities, the less people will bother doing so.
Surprisingly few actually. Even fewer amongst those who have given the subject some thought.
If so many people are pro-piracy, then why don't more people do it?
Well I'm not sure about that. The number who rely on piracy as a major source of entertainment is relatively small, whilst the number who absolutely never pirate is probably zero beyond the age of about 10. (As witnessed by the fact that many who scream about piracy have been caught doing it themselves.) In between there are many people who do it occasionally, with varying frequency.
Got any cites for that? According to this article, the vast majority of people are not pirates: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/01/how-many-internet-pirates-are-there-anyway.ars
We ll, in my experience I am often surprised at the people who think piracy is OK (for them) (including for example police officers...). I've never met anyone who thought it wrong enough never to do it who didn't have a personal stake in copyright.
The people I hang out with are generally of the opinion that while one person's piracy doesn't cause much harm, in the aggregate, piracy is harmful.
Never met anyone who believed that in real life. All the creative people I know do it because they are driven - money is an afterthought, copyright even more so. I remember a music teacher at my sons school, talking about a particularly talented pupil and saying. "You don't have to encourage him to compose - sometimes it is difficult to stop him composing!" The Beatles are on record for saying "We didn't think music could be owned - we thought it was just out there..."
Really? There are examples of people incentivized to create by copyright all around you. As I recall, the Beatles sold their music rather than gave it away for free. I'm sure Paul McCartney likes the mansion his copyrights bought him.
Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. If even a tiny bit of your creation is based on someone else's work you will find it almost impossible to get clearance to give it away. Ask Nina Paley.
Nina Paley is free to give away her own expressions, she just can't give away the expressions of others. If she chooses to use other people's expressions, then she has to play by those people's rules.
Plus all the measures against filesharing are breaking the distribution networks of those who want to give their work away. DRM measures built into computers and game consoles often make independent development unnecessarily difficult. Try writing a PS3 game and giving it away.
My understanding from Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) is that I could write a PS3 game and give it away if I want to.
On top of that you will find many copyright advocates complaining about people who give their work away - because they are undermining the cartel. In this vein the BSA has complained about open source and the music rights societies have complained about musopen.
I'm sure whenever anyone threatens the status quo, the status quo will be upset. This seems unremarkable to me, nor does it change the fact that people can give away their works for free if they choose to do so.
I wouldn't mind that choice if it was a real one.
It is a real choice. I can create an original work and give it for free. No one can stop me.
Unfortunately many copyright advocates are not like you. They are hell bent on stopping people giving stuff away even if they legally can.
Which they can't, so the point is moot.
The reason is that they realise correctly that it really is an all or nothing situation. At present 90% plus of recent material is copyrighted "all rights reserved". Therefore if you want to re-use something you have to seek out a licence to do so.
Don't forget fair use. And don't forget that only the unique expression is protected--the ideas are not.
This makes it difficult for free distributors because they have to plaster their output with cc notices to make their point. If the situation were to reverse - so that "free" became the default then life would be impossible for those who want to maintain copyright - since they would have to assume the whole burden of policing it.
Whether or not copyright is the default does not change the fact that people can give their works away for free if they so wish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fine by me. Look, if people can actually make more money by giving their works away for free, then I'm all for it. I think the reality is that those sort of alternative business models may work for some, but they don't necessarily work for everyone. I don't see blockbuster movies from the likes of James Cameron being made without copyrights anytime soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I tell you what, get everyone but Cameron to give their stuff away, and then we'll talk. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Every better tool to protect copyright is a nail in that coffin. It strip others of their rights to, to expand copyright protection is to diminish others rights, how long until something happens and people revolt against it, not many are in favor on the public side do they not matter?
That is a pipe dream never in history piracy was low, it was extensive the only thing that changed is that the internet showed how extensive it really was, pushing it underground don't eliminate the means it just cover the thing so you can't see it happening, but it is there and if you believe that affects sales then what is the point? people will keep doing it you just won't see them doing it. That is why people keep saying to you that putting your head on the ground is not a good idea.
Correction the harder it is to produce something the less people will do it. The point of technology is to facilitate how things are done it is not getting difficult to do things it is getting easier and easier every year, can the law dream of invading the homes of every American to watch them? if not you have no chance of doing that, are legislator prepared to pass laws the make it possible to law enforcement to watch every person in America? do the goverment or the industry have the man power to do so? China is trying to do that and they are failing, why? because the low hanging fruit is gone, there are now only the experts that pass that knowledge of how to do things in stealth mode and are good at it, which have some bad consequences for law enforcement at some point the government needs to weight the benefits of trying harder to enforce something that will affect the whole enviroment and make it harder to them to see what is happening.
Those lawsuits also demonstrate how ill prepared your side is and how low they will go, those lawsuits are not about protecting anything they are about creating a legal stortion scheme, the evidence is not good enough, no due dilligence was done and many innocent people are being lumped together on that crazy scheme.
Look at Japan, that have some of the most draconian laws in the world when it comes to copyright, everyone is using Share(the app) now, and the police can't break the encryption or anonymity, instead of thousands they get a dozen of people a year to prosecute.
In France groups of young people are competing now, it is a question of pride for them to thumb their noses at the government, is that what the American government wants from their people?
To have them try harder and humiliate them in public? It will be a humiliating experience like the war on drugs. People don't recocgnize those claims as legitimate, and without public support you are going nowhere that is a fact.
If they are so few why bother with legislation you already won, was it not you saying that the objective was to reduce piracy to low levels?
Every single person I know from kids to old people are ok with piracy they don't see it as a problem so in my neck of the woods, people don't have a problem with it.
You see there lies the fundamental problem of copyright it could and we are seeing signs that the tragedy-of-the-anti-commons is happening already, copyright is fragmenting ownership of things to smaller and smaller pieces and it begning to get harder and harder to make anything, because so many people own so much pieces and that cost is getting higher where even big companies can't afford to pay it.
Not if you brake the DRM in the PS3 to do it, which in fact overrules that piece of law. The DMCA make it illegal to do so, people can't write anything for the PS3 on their own they need to get permition from Sony.
Original in this time and age is an oxymoron nobody creates a "original" they create a derivative of their experiences in life which is populated by others creations, so there is a very good chance you will be sued if you are suscessful, that alone stops a lot of people, just the ignorant are not concerned, that is why film producers expend millions of dollars in clearance operations, that is why famous people keep getting sued all the time.
DMCA, the worst law in history, gives people some special powers that are leading others to create some things that people can't use even legally.
People can't backup their software, music and movies legally anymore, how is that they can't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Will you give me free access to your domicile and records?
Would you allow me to keep following you everywhere so I can be sure you are not evading the law?
By your own admission you believe pirates are a minority, and the intent of the campaign against piracy was to reduce it to low levels, is that not paradoxical? after all if it is low, why it is a problem then if the goal was reached already, why more enforcement is needed?
One thing I never see you talking about is the impact of others factors on sales and revenue, it is really only piracy that reduces income?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Will you give me free access to your domicile and records?
Would you allow me to keep following you everywhere so I can be sure you are not evading the law?
If you have prima facie evidence or probable cause and a court issues a subpoena or a warrant, go right ahead and look around.
By your own admission you believe pirates are a minority, and the intent of the campaign against piracy was to reduce it to low levels, is that not paradoxical? after all if it is low, why it is a problem then if the goal was reached already, why more enforcement is needed?
The goal isn't to make pirates a minority, the goal, as I stated, is to minimize piracy. There is no paradox. Piracy can still be decreased.
One thing I never see you talking about is the impact of others factors on sales and revenue, it is really only piracy that reduces income?
You're right. I don't really have anything intelligent to say about those things, so that's why I keep quiet. I read techdirt to learn about things like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If only such evidence were necessary for these lawsuits, then they wouldn't face such opposition.
"Piracy can still be decreased."
Indeed it can. Mass lawsuits are completely the wrong way to go about that, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In which case was there not such evidence?
Indeed it can. Mass lawsuits are completely the wrong way to go about that, however.
Maybe so, maybe not. We'll see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Maybe so, maybe not. We'll see."
We will. I doubt that it will go in the incumbents' favour, but we shall see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Prima facie means "first face." It only means that at first blush it looks like the defendant did it. The plaintiff doesn't have to prove his case conclusively just to bring the case in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is easy to achieve manufacturing tolerances of 1 meter, is more difficult do it with 1 cm, it gets harder to do it with 1 mm, it gets even more harder to do it in microns and stupidly harder to do it at the nano scale.
The same thing applies to laws and enforcement the more you try to enforce something the harder it is, so at which point it becomes nonviable to do so?
If the amount of people that are being considered criminals today a sign of problem then I don't know what else is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless, of course, it's an attempt to parody catcher in the rye by writing a sequel. Or if it makes use of a loop of music as part of a new song.
Then you better believe people can stop you.
And you should be outraged about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The court in the Salinger case didn't buy the parody argument. They saw right through it as a post hoc rationalization.
Sampling of a loop could be fair use, assuming it's not the heart of the work that's being sampled.
Then you better believe people can stop you.
The First Amendment doesn't give you the freedom to make other people's speech, so I don't see the problem.
And you should be outraged about that.
Why would I be outraged? The party doing the copying isn't having their rights violated. The party being copied is. You seem to have things backwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So in general they think it's Ok if they do it themselves - but not if the mass of the population does it?
In my experience keeping copyright law to the letter is practically impossible. For example - in Europe the rules say that you can record TV programmes of air - but you have to delete them after 28 days. I doubt if there is a single person who has owned a VCR or PVR for more than 28 days who has stuck to that one.
I'm sure that there are similar stupid provisions in US law that are impossible to keep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well that is also prove of why it doesn't work, if you can't enforce some law what that tells you?
Also a 100% of the population have commited the infraction(not crime) of infringiment. The way copyright works today nobody can say they didn't infringe on copyright. People have DVR's that is copyright infringement but judges in the U.S. mostly have taken the position that that should be allowed as a exception, every single person who did copy a DVD to give to their children to play and don't ruin the original is a pirate, every single person in this country that put a song in a mobile phone or iPod that was not bought on a digital store is a pirate now ask them if they think they are?
Heck even copying and pasting anything from the internet is copyright infringment is just absurd and nobody will respect those type of laws a) people are not lawyers nor judges they don't understand complex law concepts b) there are no mechanisms that inform people of those things, the industry attempts to do so are dismissed because they are not the law they are exagerated assertions that caused the public to ignore it.
A law that require extensive resources to be maintained is not a good law.
A law that threatens the foundation of democracy is not a good law.
We can live without arts, we cannot live without freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, but shutting down websites, banning books, blocking the creation of new songs... all due to "copyright"? That's just fine and dandy with you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And all of those things were done against people who were intentionally violating the rights of others. I'd ask you if you're OK with people intentionally violating other people's rights, but I already know the answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How many heroin users do you suppose there are in the US alone?
Or for that matter:
There were 1.3 MILLION violent crimes committed in 2009.
-- 806,000 cases of aggravated assault.
-- 89,000 cases of forcible rape (this # is fairly close to the amount of people sued for copyright infringement).
9.3 MILLION cases of property theft.
--2.1 million simple burglaries.
--6.3 million cases of larceny.
--794,000 cases of vehicle theft.
I don't suppose that we'll be changing any of these laws any time soon. I *really* don't think 100,000 is enough of a number to justify anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You should compare the number of people brought to court not the number of crimes. Most of those crimes you mention were committed by a relatively small number of people.
To get a fair comparison you would have to count the acts of infringement. If each of those 100,000 was on the hook for 50 songs (on average) then the number would be 5 million.
Please make sure you compare apples with apples.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How many single laws do you see everyday that generate a 100 thousand suits against persons a year?
How many people where jailed in 2009?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'd be interested to know if there are comparable numbers of civil lawsuits filed in a similar time period in some other area, like medical malpractice or consumer complaints.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I bet the RIAA will eventually fix everything, we can't have the common folk running around with this stuff!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Differences between circuit courts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
100,000 a year.
Successful:
A few thousand?
Number of people online:
At least 1 billion.
So only 10000 years or so until they nab everyone, assuming the population never increases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At least 1 billion.
I thought these lawsuits were in the US - not in China....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The REAL rip-off is..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mass unjust suits on copy righted movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]