"Where does it say you have the right to copy? Nowhere."
Indeed. Imagine if humans never had the right to copy anything. Take`the wheel. Some caveman had an idea that created the wheel. Other cavemen copied that idea. Imagine if they could not. Would we have as many cars as we do now?
And on the subject of cars, Henry Ford, among others, apparently challenged the patent on cars in the US and the patent was overturned. Imagine if you couldn't copy cars? For that matter, did Henry Ford get a patent on his production line? He may well have had a patent on the actual car but imagine if only Ford could produce cars with a production line because people could not copy the idea?
We have "cheap" cars because of people copying (1) the wheel (2) the car itself (3) the production method. If there was no right to copy, the car industry would probably exist to a mere fraction of a percentile of it's current state.
Regardless of copyright, humans copy. It is how we learn. I learned how to write because I copied the letters I saw on "Sesame Street". My mother then bought me some activity book and she showed me how to string the letters together into words. That was before I started school. But if I could not copy the letters then how could I read?
Many people learn a trade by copying what their teacher/instructor does. Nina Paley wrote "If I steal your bicycle you'd have to take the bus, but if I just copy it there's one for each of us". Somebody asked in retort "Would you get the steel and rubber and tools required and actually out in the effort to copy a bicycle?" Anybody who has the knowledge on how to use the tools and materials to build a bicycle could copy a bicycle if they chose to do so and they could copy any bicycle design they like in the process.
My keyboard layout is a copy of a typewriter that was designed to slow down typists. It is called a QWERTY keyboard because the keys are laid with 1234567890-= on the top row, QWERTYUIOP[]\ on the second row, ASDFGHJKL;' on the third row, ZXCVBNM,./ on the third row and a giant space bar as the bulk of the fourth row. But if you could not copy the layout, the keys on a keyboard could wind up anywhere.
If there is no right to copy, we would not have computers as we know them because the design of almost every home computer was originally done by IBM in 1981 and every other brand is a copy of the IBM design.
Have I laid that out simply enough for you? The right to copy may not be written anywhere but if there was never any copying then we would not be where we are today.
Actually, that was my reason for submitting the story: I wanted to demonstrate that (for once) the service provider (Skype) was not getting blamed. Although I do agree the law is a bit broad....
Every couple of years Australian pay TV provider Foxtel gives all "basic" subscribers access to the premium movie channels of "Showtime" or "Movie Network" for a couple of weeks or so to try to suck them in. Almost every time they do this, they do get an increase in subscribers to those channels. The promotion has worked. And nobody is upset. At least, not until the customer realise that they have added another $14.95 a month to their bill :P
What worries me if that the US can convince NZ then it really truly is only a matter of time before our government here (Australia) jumps on this bandwagon. It's bad enough they still want to filter our internet - a fact which has not made the news in months and months but, as far as anybody knows, is still on the agenda. Not to mention the NBN being limited to 200GB per month. I'm gonna hit "submit" before I start swearing....
"...these days I'm finally realizing that maybe they really do need to die off."
I agree... except, as a lover of music, both live and recorded, if the record labels die, what would happen to all the recorded music that they own? I don't think any of us would like the majority of music from the last 85 years to suddenly disappear (not that much over 20 years old is widely available unless it was a mega-hit or by a mega-star). It would be nice if everything in the vaults was preserved and released, in lossless as well as lossy formats. But I'm just dreaming.
It's almost 4:30am as I type this but I've finished reading TechDirt and I'm bored. As a bit of a lark, I decided to think about what turns ordinary every day people into pirates on the internet. There's quite a few variations of internet pirates out there. We'll start with the uploaders first.
THE F**K YOU UPLOADER:
These are the people who crack software or write the applications that crack the DRM on DVD's and the like. They enjoy the challenge. They do it for the glory of releasing it first. If "first" is before the copyright holder releases it, even better. And for a lot of them, if they can piss off a big corporation in the process, it's all the more satisfying. These people also want to get movies out as soon as they are at the cinema or get that CD out the same day the promo copies are sent to radio stations. They do it for the virtual glory. They also do games.
THE SHARERS ARE CARERS:
These are the people who rip their CD's and DVD's and record stuff off the TV and radio to upload it for people just because they like to share their things. It doesn't matter that they don't necessarily know the people they are sharing it with, as long as they can make people happy.
THE FRIENDS:
Of course, some people just copy a CD or DVD they own or record a TV show for their friends. They're not putting it up online. They are simple sharing a file or a burned disc the way people would tape an album for a friend in the 1980's. But they are still pirates. It's the way it is.
So now we've looked at the basic variations of the uploaders. There's also variations on downloaders.
THE EVERYTHING SHOULD BE FREE DOWNLOADERS:
These people just download because they can. It doesn't matter what they get, as long as they don't have to pay for it. These people are just as likely to have a few Linux ISO's as they are to have a Windows 7 ISO simply because they were free.
THE BROKE DOWNLOADERS:
These people are also downloading stuff because it is free. However, they still on occasion buy things too. These are the people on a tight budget who would buy, say, a CD or DVD every week because that is all they can afford but, because they can download stuff for free, they have a dozen times more than they would otherwise have. They generally only have what they like and delete things they don't like. These are the kinds of people who, in the 1980's, were taping songs off the radio and taping TV shows in the 1990's.
THE CAN'T BUY IT DOWNLOADERS:
Not to be confused with the "Broke Downloaders", these are people who want stuff that they can't buy. CD's that have been deleted since 1987, TV shows that somebody taped in the 1990's that haven't been released on DVD. They buy what they want but if they can't buy it, it doesn't mean they should go without. Chances are, if it exists, there is a pirate copy available to download somewhere. Sometimes these people don't buy things because the only way to buy it is to pay a huge sum of money on eBay or Amazon Marketplace for it. Still not to be confused with the "Broke Downloaders", if you want a CD, for example, and the only way to get it was to buy it from somebody asking hundreds of dollars for it, would you? Some would, some wouldn't.
Of course, there are lots more reasons than this. When all is said and done, though, these are the three main categories that the majority of uploading and downloading pirates fall into. I hope you've enjoyed reading this little article which I made up off the top of my head based on observations I've made across the last 10 years or so. And, in case you didn't notice, I left out "money" from the uploading categories because the number of people who actually make money from uploading are so far in the minority as to barely be a blip on the radar.
This is completely off topic from the article but kind of on topic for what you were saying above.
I was telling a friend last night how I'd like a "one size fits all" console - one that would play PS1/2/3, xBox 1/360 and Nintendo GameCube/Wii games without needing separate consoles. I concluded that there are people out there who could build such a console but would probably get their asses sued off for patent infringement and promoting piracy if they sold such a unit. Personally I would buy one and buy the games too.
One thing that always gives me the you-know-whats (rhymes with "wit") when reading TechDirt is: WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THESE THINGS?
Sure, I have a good laugh at some of the more ridiculous lawsuits and copyright holders who copywrong, but I would like to be able to DO something besides whinge about things here in the comments!
"Nothing Compares 2U" as recorded by Sinead O'Conner was the number 1 selling song of the year in Australia in 1990. Prince's original version? He had never released it!
"Kiss" as recorded by Art Of Noise with vocals by Tom Jones? A prime example because, in my opinion, that version rocked and Prince's original version sucked!
Prince: Great musician, great singer, great songwriting skills, worst attitude ever. Some of the drivel he says makes the RIAA seem like champions of copy-culture!
POINT ONE:
How about the fact that (in Australia) between 1991 and 1999 a new release CD album was around AU$30 whereas by 1998 a CD single was AU$10 ~ Of course you "can't compete with "free" when you're charging ten bucks a song!
POINT TWO:
Apparently actual units of CD's sold began to decline in 1995 but the fact that they put the prices up offset any monetary decrease in those sales. As soon as I revive the other computer (where the source is bookmarked) I shall provide a source if wanted
I found TechDirt from a friend who showed me an article from it but accidentally linked me to the main page instead of the article.
I found two fantastic sites that I now frequent, one thanks to a friend and one thanks to my Dad!
I found a site that archives the Australian music charts thanks to Wikipedia.
When I want to find the availability of a DVD, I go to Amazon and ezyDVD first (both found from simply hearing about them)
When I want to find the availability of a song, I go to Wikipedia first and usually eBay second when I find out that it is actually 25+ years old and hard to get.
In fact, I have only one website that I frequent that I found through Google - and even then it was linked to from another site!
There is a record label out there that is in serious financial trouble. It should be available to buy for cheap. It is called EMI.
Imagine if Google bought EMI. They would hold the rights to The Beatles masters, John Lennon, Nat "King" Cole, The Beach Boys, Coldplay, Belinda Carlisle.... This list goes on! What a catalogue to build on! Plus using the existing facilities to build a new "label" on top of it. Google EMI. Youtube could allow EMI's videos up from any user. Content ID would still play a role: If there's a match, that's when the ad bar pops up. No need for geo-blocking.
Warner have been sniffing around at possibly buying EMI, as has SOny, I've heard. But imagine if Google beat them. That would be a major coup for online distribution. If Google are truly as "for the people" as they claim to be, this would be of great benefit to society worldwide.
I don't want Microsoft to buy any of the labels as they pretty much invented the End User License Agreement (EULA: We own you. [Agree] or [Agree])
On the post: Peter Friedman's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: The Right To Copy?
Indeed. Imagine if humans never had the right to copy anything. Take`the wheel. Some caveman had an idea that created the wheel. Other cavemen copied that idea. Imagine if they could not. Would we have as many cars as we do now?
And on the subject of cars, Henry Ford, among others, apparently challenged the patent on cars in the US and the patent was overturned. Imagine if you couldn't copy cars? For that matter, did Henry Ford get a patent on his production line? He may well have had a patent on the actual car but imagine if only Ford could produce cars with a production line because people could not copy the idea?
We have "cheap" cars because of people copying (1) the wheel (2) the car itself (3) the production method. If there was no right to copy, the car industry would probably exist to a mere fraction of a percentile of it's current state.
Regardless of copyright, humans copy. It is how we learn. I learned how to write because I copied the letters I saw on "Sesame Street". My mother then bought me some activity book and she showed me how to string the letters together into words. That was before I started school. But if I could not copy the letters then how could I read?
Many people learn a trade by copying what their teacher/instructor does. Nina Paley wrote "If I steal your bicycle you'd have to take the bus, but if I just copy it there's one for each of us". Somebody asked in retort "Would you get the steel and rubber and tools required and actually out in the effort to copy a bicycle?" Anybody who has the knowledge on how to use the tools and materials to build a bicycle could copy a bicycle if they chose to do so and they could copy any bicycle design they like in the process.
My keyboard layout is a copy of a typewriter that was designed to slow down typists. It is called a QWERTY keyboard because the keys are laid with 1234567890-= on the top row, QWERTYUIOP[]\ on the second row, ASDFGHJKL;' on the third row, ZXCVBNM,./ on the third row and a giant space bar as the bulk of the fourth row. But if you could not copy the layout, the keys on a keyboard could wind up anywhere.
If there is no right to copy, we would not have computers as we know them because the design of almost every home computer was originally done by IBM in 1981 and every other brand is a copy of the IBM design.
Have I laid that out simply enough for you? The right to copy may not be written anywhere but if there was never any copying then we would not be where we are today.
On the post: Australian Anti-Trolling Law Put To The Test After Guy Broadcasts Having Sex Via Skype
Re: Right to privacy
On the post: Disney Claims It's Copyright Infringement For Dish To Offer Starz To Non-Premium Subscribers
Duh, Disney, it's called PROMOTION
On the post: Disney Claims It's Copyright Infringement For Dish To Offer Starz To Non-Premium Subscribers
I love irony
On the post: Judge Slams Copyright Troll Lawyer John Steele's Latest 'Fishing Expedition'
haha
On the post: US Offered To Write New Zealand's Three Strikes Laws
Oh crap =(
On the post: Is It Possible To Salvage Open WiFi?
Error: Reason not good enough
On the post: Chris Rhodes Favorite Techdirt Stories Of The Week
That was the week that was
Nicely written, too - I enjoyed it!
Also, I have a funny feeling that the week coming up is gonna be huge. I have no idea why, it's just a feeling I have.....
On the post: Leaked Documents Show How The RIAA Plans To Spend The Limewire Settlement
Re: Re: What Makes People Turn Into Pirates?
I was thinking about the "Twice Bitten Thrice Shy" category but I couldn't think how to word it. You did a splendid summary. Thank you!
On the post: The Ridiculous Demands The Record Labels Want For Music Lockers
I agree... except, as a lover of music, both live and recorded, if the record labels die, what would happen to all the recorded music that they own? I don't think any of us would like the majority of music from the last 85 years to suddenly disappear (not that much over 20 years old is widely available unless it was a mega-hit or by a mega-star). It would be nice if everything in the vaults was preserved and released, in lossless as well as lossy formats. But I'm just dreaming.
On the post: Leaked Documents Show How The RIAA Plans To Spend The Limewire Settlement
What Makes People Turn Into Pirates?
THE F**K YOU UPLOADER:
These are the people who crack software or write the applications that crack the DRM on DVD's and the like. They enjoy the challenge. They do it for the glory of releasing it first. If "first" is before the copyright holder releases it, even better. And for a lot of them, if they can piss off a big corporation in the process, it's all the more satisfying. These people also want to get movies out as soon as they are at the cinema or get that CD out the same day the promo copies are sent to radio stations. They do it for the virtual glory. They also do games.
THE SHARERS ARE CARERS:
These are the people who rip their CD's and DVD's and record stuff off the TV and radio to upload it for people just because they like to share their things. It doesn't matter that they don't necessarily know the people they are sharing it with, as long as they can make people happy.
THE FRIENDS:
Of course, some people just copy a CD or DVD they own or record a TV show for their friends. They're not putting it up online. They are simple sharing a file or a burned disc the way people would tape an album for a friend in the 1980's. But they are still pirates. It's the way it is.
So now we've looked at the basic variations of the uploaders. There's also variations on downloaders.
THE EVERYTHING SHOULD BE FREE DOWNLOADERS:
These people just download because they can. It doesn't matter what they get, as long as they don't have to pay for it. These people are just as likely to have a few Linux ISO's as they are to have a Windows 7 ISO simply because they were free.
THE BROKE DOWNLOADERS:
These people are also downloading stuff because it is free. However, they still on occasion buy things too. These are the people on a tight budget who would buy, say, a CD or DVD every week because that is all they can afford but, because they can download stuff for free, they have a dozen times more than they would otherwise have. They generally only have what they like and delete things they don't like. These are the kinds of people who, in the 1980's, were taping songs off the radio and taping TV shows in the 1990's.
THE CAN'T BUY IT DOWNLOADERS:
Not to be confused with the "Broke Downloaders", these are people who want stuff that they can't buy. CD's that have been deleted since 1987, TV shows that somebody taped in the 1990's that haven't been released on DVD. They buy what they want but if they can't buy it, it doesn't mean they should go without. Chances are, if it exists, there is a pirate copy available to download somewhere. Sometimes these people don't buy things because the only way to buy it is to pay a huge sum of money on eBay or Amazon Marketplace for it. Still not to be confused with the "Broke Downloaders", if you want a CD, for example, and the only way to get it was to buy it from somebody asking hundreds of dollars for it, would you? Some would, some wouldn't.
Of course, there are lots more reasons than this. When all is said and done, though, these are the three main categories that the majority of uploading and downloading pirates fall into. I hope you've enjoyed reading this little article which I made up off the top of my head based on observations I've made across the last 10 years or so. And, in case you didn't notice, I left out "money" from the uploading categories because the number of people who actually make money from uploading are so far in the minority as to barely be a blip on the radar.
On the post: Analyst: Motorola's Best Play Is To Become A Patent Troll & Destroy Android Ecosystem With Patent Lawsuits
Re: Re: Imagination
I was telling a friend last night how I'd like a "one size fits all" console - one that would play PS1/2/3, xBox 1/360 and Nintendo GameCube/Wii games without needing separate consoles. I concluded that there are people out there who could build such a console but would probably get their asses sued off for patent infringement and promoting piracy if they sold such a unit. Personally I would buy one and buy the games too.
On the post: Glyn Moody's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Sure, I have a good laugh at some of the more ridiculous lawsuits and copyright holders who copywrong, but I would like to be able to DO something besides whinge about things here in the comments!
On the post: Prince Claims When Someone Covers Your Song, The Original No Longer Exists
"Kiss" as recorded by Art Of Noise with vocals by Tom Jones? A prime example because, in my opinion, that version rocked and Prince's original version sucked!
Prince: Great musician, great singer, great songwriting skills, worst attitude ever. Some of the drivel he says makes the RIAA seem like champions of copy-culture!
On the post: New RIAA Evidence Comes To Light: Napster Killed Kerosene Too!
Who is to blame?
How about the fact that (in Australia) between 1991 and 1999 a new release CD album was around AU$30 whereas by 1998 a CD single was AU$10 ~ Of course you "can't compete with "free" when you're charging ten bucks a song!
POINT TWO:
Apparently actual units of CD's sold began to decline in 1995 but the fact that they put the prices up offset any monetary decrease in those sales. As soon as I revive the other computer (where the source is bookmarked) I shall provide a source if wanted
On the post: UK Politicians Want To Regulate Google... Because It's Good At What It Does
Google Schmoogle
I found TechDirt from a friend who showed me an article from it but accidentally linked me to the main page instead of the article.
I found two fantastic sites that I now frequent, one thanks to a friend and one thanks to my Dad!
I found a site that archives the Australian music charts thanks to Wikipedia.
When I want to find the availability of a DVD, I go to Amazon and ezyDVD first (both found from simply hearing about them)
When I want to find the availability of a song, I go to Wikipedia first and usually eBay second when I find out that it is actually 25+ years old and hard to get.
In fact, I have only one website that I frequent that I found through Google - and even then it was linked to from another site!
On the post: If You Thought YouTube's Copyright Lesson Was Bad...
But that aside, I have seen "amateur" videos on YouTube filmed on some kid's mobile phone that looked more professional than this thing!
And the opening bit about downloading was very vague. Took me a moment to work out what the heck was going on!
On the post: Why Google Should Buy The Recording Industry
EMI - Every Mistake Imaginable
There is a record label out there that is in serious financial trouble. It should be available to buy for cheap. It is called EMI.
Imagine if Google bought EMI. They would hold the rights to The Beatles masters, John Lennon, Nat "King" Cole, The Beach Boys, Coldplay, Belinda Carlisle.... This list goes on! What a catalogue to build on! Plus using the existing facilities to build a new "label" on top of it. Google EMI. Youtube could allow EMI's videos up from any user. Content ID would still play a role: If there's a match, that's when the ad bar pops up. No need for geo-blocking.
Warner have been sniffing around at possibly buying EMI, as has SOny, I've heard. But imagine if Google beat them. That would be a major coup for online distribution. If Google are truly as "for the people" as they claim to be, this would be of great benefit to society worldwide.
I don't want Microsoft to buy any of the labels as they pretty much invented the End User License Agreement (EULA: We own you. [Agree] or [Agree])
On the post: Incentivized Creation
On the post: Being Successful With New Business Models Still Means Hard Work
Next >>