Bull. You're on the internet. It's impossible to avoid infringement on the internet. The only way to not infringe is to never use a computer.
Here's how it works. You visited this website. This website has copyrighted information (the articles). This information is copyrighted regardless of the creator's will; it's automatic.
By visiting the website, your computer made at least two unauthorized copies, according to current copyright law. It saved the files once into RAM, and once into your temporary internet files. You did not have permission for either of these copies because your created *new* copies of a copyrighted work. Even if Mike gave you permission to use his original copy, your computer automatically created new copies which are inherently infringing since they are separate from the original work.
In order for this to be avoided, the *only* websites (and all internet media, for that matter) you could ever view would require an unlimited distribution and free manipulation license, which the vast majority of the internet does not have. Therefore, by going to any website with any sort of media, including text, video, or sound, you are guilty of copyright infringement.
It doesn't fit under fair use, since the new copy is not 1) Transformative (the work is virtually identical), 2) they are not facts/ideas, but are artistic works, 3) they copy the entire work, not just a small part, and 4) you do not purchase this copy and thus potentially caused economic harm to the creater (whether they are selling it or not).
The only reason the internet isn't banned by current copyright law is either because the lawmakers haven't quite figured out how computers work yet, or because the concept is so insane the legal system is willfully ignoring it. Or maybe because there's so much money in suing people they don't want to destroy the internet, just rip people off for using it.
I can imagine you're thinking that description is dumb, or false, or there's something wrong with it. Bingo. You just figured out why the people on this website don't like copyright laws as they currently exist.
It's silly fear mongering to be concerned we may get accused of copyright infringement from organizations that manage to accuse *themselves* of copyright infringement?
That's like saying "I never speed, therefore those intersection cameras will never affect me, only you dirty speeders!" I wonder if your tune would change if you were one of the people who's parked car was cited for speeding.
You are just as vulnerable to six strikes as everyone else, whether you pirate or not. The only way to avoid it is to not use the internet at all.
Actually, for some US citizens that is somewhat true. If a naturalized citizen is found to be a member of a communist or anarchist organization they can have their citizenship stripped and be deported (and if you admit to having ever belonged to a communist party, you will never become a citizen in the first place or even get a green card). The same is true if they're accused of being a terrorist.
Is this sarcastic? I'm can't really tell if this is a joke or you're being serious.
Just in case, being part of a communist or anarchist organization is perfectly legal in the U.S. You are legally permitted to speak out against the U.S. government. In order to have your citizenship revoked you must stand trial before a federal judge. And you would never lose it for an accusation; you would have to be convicted of illegal activity.
Let us all just agree that copyright should ideally balance the rights of artists and creators with the rights of the general public. However this appears to be an inpediment to the whiny Google lobbyists on this board that wish to line their pockets with stolen content.
This statement may have had relevance ten years ago. It doesn't now. The fundamental premise of this logic is flawed because there is no functional difference between "artists and creators" and "the general public." You act like these are completely separate groups when modern technology easily combines the two. Youtube users are both creators and the public. Game modders are both creators and the public. Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, deviantart...all these people are creators and the public.
The concept of "art" as something created by an elite few for the pleasure of the masses has been dying a slow death since the internet developed. It's like we're passing legislation to prevent cars from going faster than 15 MPH in order to avoid causing "irreparable harm" to the horse-and-buggy industry.
You can't steal culture. You can fight culture, you can direct culture, you can profit off of culture. But it is not a commodity that can be taken away by spreading more of it.
We've created a society where every single person, including you, breaks the law on a daily basis, often without even realizing it. When a normal life becomes illegal, there is a problem with the law, not a problem with the people.
Re: Re: Re: what is an illegal internet pharmacy????
actually, obviously IT IS !!!!
Saying something multiple times does not make it true. If I send a letter to you without a return address it will still be sent. The post office will have no idea who sent it and will deliver it anyway. This is not illegal nor even against policy. The same is true of UPS.
They are liable, and they are required to know the contents of the parcels they transport. They are required by law to follow all the importation laws, and all the laws that relate to the transport of illegal materials.
This is also not true. I worked for UPS for three years. The only time packages were "inspected" is if they gave indications of being hazardous; i.e. leaking, smoking, moving, etc. Packages would often break open if not properly packed and these would be placed in a new box (and obviously employees would see the contents). There were never any notices to watch out for packages from a specific sender and the only address we were concerned about was the destination address. I packed hundreds, maybe thousands, of boxes with no return address.
The action may have been illegal for another reason, but it certainly isn't because UPS was required to know what was in the packages and take action to avoid transporting illegal material, because such a requirement simply does not exist.
This is not black and white. The drug company may be committing a crime in the U.S., but not in their own country, so their action is not illegal. UPS is not required to inspect nor deny packages based on suspicion of illegal activity without a court order (which would then have to be more than suspicion).
UPS would have had to spend far more than $40 million fighting this in court, so they took the cheaper end of the deal and moved on. They're just another company trolled by the DOJ, as has been happening for years.
Given the DOJ's recent track record I believe they need to regain the U.S.'s trust and cannot assume they have it. The entire justice system has become corrupt and are not being held accountable for their actions. This is far more of an issue than UPS sending drugs that are legal to purchase and use in Canada, a country with arguably much better health care standards than the U.S., to U.S. consumers.
If legal issues were so simple as you describe, we wouldn't need incredibly expensive lawyers that spend years and years in school in order to understand and manipulate those laws. But we do because it really is that complicated. The American public has every right to be skeptical when it comes to rulings passed by the DOJ.
Sorry, the rest of us were talking about illegal downloads. You do understand the difference, right?
NO. The rest of us were talking about copyright infringement. Six strikes is about copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is NOT "illegal downloads." Please, please go do some actual research since you still don't grasp what we're talking about here.
If I buy a movie, then play a 30 second clip of it on YouTube, I have participated in possible copyright infringement. If I buy a movie and then rip it to play on my tablet, I have participated in copyright infringement. If I buy SimCity, then hack it to play offline, I have participated in copyright infringement.
Not one of these examples involve illegal downloads. Yet all would be considered violations under copyright law and the six strikes policy. None of these things are unethical or immoral.
You do understand the difference between something that is unethical and something that is illegal, right?
So don't pay. If you didn't steal it, you shouldn't have a problem. PS, there's an old saying: "You can't get fucked unless you assume the position." Maybe you should think of that before you download Game of Thrones instead of being reminded at your hearing.
Huh, so it's OK for the police to set up cameras in your house and watch you 24 hours a day? Hey, you don't have anything to hide, right?
Hey, wait a minute! You're using your neighbor's lawnmower! YOU MUST HAVE STOLEN IT! You say he let you borrow it? OK, we'll just arrest you until you can prove that it wasn't stolen.
@Wally - What are you talking about? Just because these things are handled server side doesn't meant they *have* to be. It would be easy to create a random generator that takes the average economic situation of neighboring cities, puts in a couple profiles of city types, throw in some random values with constraints, and *poof* single player game. We have plenty of games with bots and AI that are substantially more complex than the level of interaction SimCity requires between players.
The point is players should have the OPTION of both. There's nothing inherently wrong with the multiplayer. But what if I don't want to bother with other people's cities? What if I just want to make my own metropolis and burn it to the ground? The game even has a mode like this...yet you still need to be connected online. Why?
You even say that you don't have to participate in the online economy. So if you choose not to, why do you still need to be online? At least Starcraft II has an offline mode.
Which incidentally is the key to all of this. Online games are fine. Multiplayer features are fine. It's only when you take a logically single-player game and force online connectivity that you p*ss people off. People don't mind Steam's DRM because it's fairly unobtrusive; if you lose internet connectivity you simply press "Restart in Offline Mode" and continue on your merry way. And in return you get a lot of great game enhancing features; automatic updates, sales and stable downloads, *optional* cloud saving, and unlimited installation across your account. Origin and SimCity took only the annoying part (DRM) and none of the benefits...then made that DRM *worse*.
Then they have the gall to act surprised when this bugs people. Just wow.
I get reminded of the technicalities when I use the more descriptive term, "thief"
I think "freeloader is an apt term for someone who takes something of value, to which they;'re unentitled without due compensation.
What is a pirate stealing? Please, explain this to me. If I walk in to a Wal Mart and look at a poster, then walk out of the store without buying it, did I just steal that poster? Or if I buy the poster, and take it home and then draw mustaches on the people in the poster, and there's a sticker on the back that says "By opening this poster, you agree to not modify this poster in any way.", did I just steal the poster? What if I take a picture in my room, and the poster is in the background, now did I steal the poster? Please, take your time.
There has never been more distribution, more content and greater access to the creation of content than there is today.
This has NOTHING to do with copyright. This is in spite of copyright and the entertainment industry. All this new content, all this greater access has been fought tooth and nail. Does HBO legally allow me to purchase the new episodes of Game of Thrones the day they're released, to watch on any device I own? No. Why? I'll tell you one thing, it's not because they can't. It's because they won't. Not at any price. That's restriction of distribution, not more access. The only reason we have the access we do is because the demand is so overwhelming they simply can't ignore. The fact is that the raw *service* provided by piracy is better than most legal distribution systems.
Wherever they are, it seems to be making a ding in freeloading.
Citation needed. I have not seen a single report that demonstrates evidence the six strikes system, which to my knowledge has not even been particularly advertised (kind of silly to put out a "punishment" if no one knows about it; great deterrent there). This is pure conjecture and most likely not true.
The part about your post that is so incredibly small-minded is the use of the term "freeloader." You obviously have no clue what the conflict relating to copyright even is. This issue is not, and never really has been, a conflict between people who want free stuff (the "pirates") and the entertainment industry who just wants to be paid for their product. The issue is that the entertainment industry has legislated, through copyright, the ability to compete with complete disregard for consumer demand by making competition illegal.
It sickens me to see someone trying to take the moral high ground when they don't even know what the conflict is.
Re: We do this all of the time-- it's called public policy
A safety on a gun is completely different from DRM. The comparison doesn't make any sense. A safety is designed to protect and assist the user. DRM is designed to limit access by the user. If you had a gun that could only be fired by the registered owner, and if they want to teach someone else to shoot the other person needs to buy their own gun first, plus the gun prevents any type of magazine other than ones sold by the gun manufacturer, NOW you're in DRM territory.
It is artificial scarcity because the development costs are heavily self-imposed. License costs, $3,675 dollar 3d graphics programs which are only slightly superior to freeware (3d Studio vs. Blender), and publisher limitations all dramatically inflate the cost to create content. Many of these things exist due to legacy industry and backroom deals, not because they have that much inherent value.
As technology improves, and costs to create (as well as barriers to entry) are reduced, the logical thing is for the prices to drop as well. If you expect people to spend $15 for a CD they can burn at home for a cent (or more likely do without the CD completely), which is the same as before that technology existed, you're delusional.
It would be like someone trying to sell a Trio smartphone for $300. It's obsolete technology and no one is going to pay the old price. Gone are the days of idiot consumers who only have the word of advertisements provided by a select few corporations to go on. If consumers aren't willing to pay what you want them to pay, stop making your stuff. Someone else, probably better than you, will fill the void at the price people are willing to pay, and nobody will miss you.
The sad part is that the only ones really inconvenienced by DRM are paying customers. I can't think of a single piece of mainstream software that hasn't been pirated at some point.
The only purpose I can think of for DRM is to set up lawsuits via the anti-circumvention clause in the DMCA. That way someone with a legitimate copyright use can be sued due to breaking the ineffective DRM.
OK, the other purpose is so that developers/publishers can put in a check box next to the "anti-piracy" spreadsheet that makes CEOs feel like they're solving the problem. It saddens me that we have such powerful analytical tools available yet we've forgotten how to use the analysis. If only they'd add a "Customers lost due to our business practices" column next to the "Sales lost due to piracy" column we might actually get somewhere.
Unfortunately it's much easier to be a person who places blame on others rather than be a person who takes responsibility for themselves.
AC, you do realize that "censored" comments can be viewed by clicking them, right? They're still there, TD is just giving people the option to avoid reading dangerous stupidity. It's so good of you to not only post the same idiocy twice, but do so in a way that makes you look even dumber!
Just in case it's not clear:
Point 1: the law assumes innocence until guilt is proved. Accusations are NOT convictions. The six-strikes policy turns accusations into convictions that you must appeal.
Point 2: the six-strikes policy is not a law. It's a policy made up by a corporate entity that has no legal authority.
Point 3: artists have been exploited by the entertainment industry FAR more than every pirate combined. At least pirates let the artist keep the rights to their own work. The industry won't even let them keep that.
WoW teaches you how to be social *online*, which is used in the vast majority of businesses today. Nonverbal communication is not the only form of human communications (and this is completely ignoring the typical use of emotes in games and online communication).
TV and video games are very different from the perspective of the one participating. TV requires no input from the viewer; you passively accept the story or actions as they happen. Video games require input, reflexes, critical thinking, and social interaction (depending on the game) in order to be successful. You may want to read about "gamification" and how turning traditional passive learning into active "video game" learning has improved retention and application of real-world skills.
I agree that parents need more interaction with their children, but I would argue that it's better to do so by engaging with your children in the video games themselves, not by discouraging them from having fun. You can't fix bad parenting by outlawing video games, music, TV, books, or whatever scapegoat you decide is "destroying the country" today.
Oh, and if the fruits of the garden are our reduced violent crime rates among children, then that's awesome news!
1) Wrong. Creators are granted a limited right to maintain a monopoly on their works. If creators had the sole right to copy their work, publishers couldn't exist, because they are by definition copying someone else's work.
2) Difficulty of creation has no relevance to a creator's rights, it doesn't now, and never has. This is completely off-topic.
3) Law for copyright exists to grant creators a limited exclusive right to a new idea before it is added to the public domain for the improvement of society. This is to incentivise creation.
4) Wrong. Copyright specifies who can distribute original copies. Other individuals can profit besides the original owner. This is painfully obvious if you think about the concept of, I don't know, every store in existence.
5) Technically true. Life + 70 years (or 120+ in the case of corporations) is not effectively limited. Anything that is limited for two lifetimes may as well be unlimited for all practical purposes.
6) There may not be a right to copy, but there is freedom of speech and the freedom to do what I want with things I have. Copyright prevents me from doing something I could otherwise do, therefore it is removing a right by definition. We, as a society, accept this in a limited degree in order to incentivise creation. Since the limitation is gone, and my rights are being ignored, I see no reason why I should respect the rights I am granting another person if they refuse to respect mine.
7) The method of copying is irrelevant, both in reality and in copyright law.
Your all-caps opening is wrong, too. If I buy something, it's mine. I can give it to whoever I want. Copyright is removing that right.
You can copy and paste as many times as you want but it will never be true.
YES, my points are ALL valid, aligned with facts, or so I believe.
But just because Big Media is bad doesn't make Little Pirates right. My admonition to NOT STEAL applies equally to both groups.
Key words..."NOT STEAL." Piracy is NEVER stealing. If I go into an art gallery and take a painting, that is stealing. If I take a picture of the painting, and post it online, that's (sort of) piracy. Heck, even if I made an exact copy of the painting I still never stole the painting.
If your points are all aligned with "facts" how can you ignore this fact? There can be no debate on this topic. It's like saying that driving without your seatbelt is the same thing as murder. While the ultimate result may be similar (someone dying) the two things are NOT the same, ever.
If you want to engage in an actual debate on a topic it helps to learn the basic concepts first. I recommend looking up the Wikipedia page on "Copyright Infringement", read the link to Dowling v. United States where the courts ruled specifically that copyright infringement is not theft. Note specifically that, under the law, the owner must be "wholly deprived" of the object in question to constitute theft, which piracy never does.
You can believe your points are aligned with facts all you want. Until you learn what a fact is, however, all your opinions are worthless. Extra credit assignment: learn the difference between opinions and facts. Hint: they aren't the same.
Re: Re: Re: "figuring out ways to help provide the public what they want."
Bullshit. It's like a car company complaining that someone figured out to make exact copies of their cars and distribute them for free.
Not at all. For that to be true the products would have to be the same. They aren't...the service the consumers demand is not being met by the industry.
Let's use an obvious example. Let's say I want to buy the first two seasons of Game of Thrones from HBO to put on my tablet so I can watch it on the plane. Guess what? There is no legal way to do this. My options are to buy the DVDs and rip them (illegal due to DMCA anti-circumvention), rip the streams from HBO Go (illegal for the same reason and requires a cable subscription to HBO), or...well, pirate them.
The service I want is not being sold. Here's a better comparison to your example...a car company is selling a car that only allows you to drive from 6am-10pm, prevents you from ever driving over the speed limit, requires you to pay again if someone else drives, and doesn't allow you to use aftermarket pieces for your car.
So someone releases an identical car that allows you to drive whenever you want, as fast as you want, with as many drivers as you want, and you can add spinning rims and heavy tinting to your heart's content. Oh, and it's free.
Which are you going to choose? Because that's exactly the situation consumers are in right now...we CAN'T BUY the better product because it isn't being offered by anyone other than the "pirates." Sell something that's even close and legit and people will flock to it (*cough* Netflix, Hulu, both of which are inferior to pirate offerings *cough*).
I was being generous with my public transit comparison because in the real world public transit is at least usually inferior in service to cars and still has a cost. Piracy is free *and* has better service. Remove the better service as a variable and you'll find a lot more people are willing to pay. It's not that complicated.
No, no, this is normal irony...it is ironic that someone who states "Here's where you flatly go wrong" proceeds to make a flatly wrong statement.
Nowhere, not in the law, not in the dictionary, and not in ethics, are "theft" and "copyright infringement" considered the same thing. Even a child knows the difference between taking another child's crayons and drawing the same picture.
Then again, maybe we should all stop trying to have a serious debate against someone who apparently has less concept of property versus intellectual rights than your average kindergartener.
On the post: Macklemore Explains Why Not Being On A Label Helped Him Succeed
*Cricket*
On the post: Copyright Troll Malibu Media Seeking 'Six Strikes' Info From Verizon In Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57559105-71/speed-camera-gives-ticket-to-stationary-car/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7043325/Driver-parked-in-front-of-speed-cam era-gets-tickets.html
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/03/parked-cars-receive-speed-camera-tic kets/
Yes. Questions?
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: University Threatens Own Faculty With Copyright Infringement For Campus Survey
Re: Re: Re:
Bull. You're on the internet. It's impossible to avoid infringement on the internet. The only way to not infringe is to never use a computer.
Here's how it works. You visited this website. This website has copyrighted information (the articles). This information is copyrighted regardless of the creator's will; it's automatic.
By visiting the website, your computer made at least two unauthorized copies, according to current copyright law. It saved the files once into RAM, and once into your temporary internet files. You did not have permission for either of these copies because your created *new* copies of a copyrighted work. Even if Mike gave you permission to use his original copy, your computer automatically created new copies which are inherently infringing since they are separate from the original work.
In order for this to be avoided, the *only* websites (and all internet media, for that matter) you could ever view would require an unlimited distribution and free manipulation license, which the vast majority of the internet does not have. Therefore, by going to any website with any sort of media, including text, video, or sound, you are guilty of copyright infringement.
It doesn't fit under fair use, since the new copy is not 1) Transformative (the work is virtually identical), 2) they are not facts/ideas, but are artistic works, 3) they copy the entire work, not just a small part, and 4) you do not purchase this copy and thus potentially caused economic harm to the creater (whether they are selling it or not).
The only reason the internet isn't banned by current copyright law is either because the lawmakers haven't quite figured out how computers work yet, or because the concept is so insane the legal system is willfully ignoring it. Or maybe because there's so much money in suing people they don't want to destroy the internet, just rip people off for using it.
I can imagine you're thinking that description is dumb, or false, or there's something wrong with it. Bingo. You just figured out why the people on this website don't like copyright laws as they currently exist.
Welcome to the club.
On the post: Copyright Troll Malibu Media Seeking 'Six Strikes' Info From Verizon In Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's like saying "I never speed, therefore those intersection cameras will never affect me, only you dirty speeders!" I wonder if your tune would change if you were one of the people who's parked car was cited for speeding.
You are just as vulnerable to six strikes as everyone else, whether you pirate or not. The only way to avoid it is to not use the internet at all.
Which is probably the point.
On the post: Homeland Security 'Fusion' Center Director: We're Not Spying On Americans... Just Anti-Government Americans
Re:
Is this sarcastic? I'm can't really tell if this is a joke or you're being serious.
Just in case, being part of a communist or anarchist organization is perfectly legal in the U.S. You are legally permitted to speak out against the U.S. government. In order to have your citizenship revoked you must stand trial before a federal judge. And you would never lose it for an accusation; you would have to be convicted of illegal activity.
On the post: Damaging The Internet Is Not Acceptable Collateral Damage In The Copyright Wars
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This statement may have had relevance ten years ago. It doesn't now. The fundamental premise of this logic is flawed because there is no functional difference between "artists and creators" and "the general public." You act like these are completely separate groups when modern technology easily combines the two. Youtube users are both creators and the public. Game modders are both creators and the public. Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, deviantart...all these people are creators and the public.
The concept of "art" as something created by an elite few for the pleasure of the masses has been dying a slow death since the internet developed. It's like we're passing legislation to prevent cars from going faster than 15 MPH in order to avoid causing "irreparable harm" to the horse-and-buggy industry.
You can't steal culture. You can fight culture, you can direct culture, you can profit off of culture. But it is not a commodity that can be taken away by spreading more of it.
We've created a society where every single person, including you, breaks the law on a daily basis, often without even realizing it. When a normal life becomes illegal, there is a problem with the law, not a problem with the people.
On the post: UPS Coughs Up $40 Million Because It Delivered Drugs From Rogue Pharmacies
Re: Re: Re: what is an illegal internet pharmacy????
Saying something multiple times does not make it true. If I send a letter to you without a return address it will still be sent. The post office will have no idea who sent it and will deliver it anyway. This is not illegal nor even against policy. The same is true of UPS.
They are liable, and they are required to know the contents of the parcels they transport. They are required by law to follow all the importation laws, and all the laws that relate to the transport of illegal materials.
This is also not true. I worked for UPS for three years. The only time packages were "inspected" is if they gave indications of being hazardous; i.e. leaking, smoking, moving, etc. Packages would often break open if not properly packed and these would be placed in a new box (and obviously employees would see the contents). There were never any notices to watch out for packages from a specific sender and the only address we were concerned about was the destination address. I packed hundreds, maybe thousands, of boxes with no return address.
The action may have been illegal for another reason, but it certainly isn't because UPS was required to know what was in the packages and take action to avoid transporting illegal material, because such a requirement simply does not exist.
This is not black and white. The drug company may be committing a crime in the U.S., but not in their own country, so their action is not illegal. UPS is not required to inspect nor deny packages based on suspicion of illegal activity without a court order (which would then have to be more than suspicion).
UPS would have had to spend far more than $40 million fighting this in court, so they took the cheaper end of the deal and moved on. They're just another company trolled by the DOJ, as has been happening for years.
Given the DOJ's recent track record I believe they need to regain the U.S.'s trust and cannot assume they have it. The entire justice system has become corrupt and are not being held accountable for their actions. This is far more of an issue than UPS sending drugs that are legal to purchase and use in Canada, a country with arguably much better health care standards than the U.S., to U.S. consumers.
If legal issues were so simple as you describe, we wouldn't need incredibly expensive lawyers that spend years and years in school in order to understand and manipulate those laws. But we do because it really is that complicated. The American public has every right to be skeptical when it comes to rulings passed by the DOJ.
On the post: Government Can Keep Key Emails With Hollywood Lobbyists About 'Six Strikes' Secret
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
NO. The rest of us were talking about copyright infringement. Six strikes is about copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is NOT "illegal downloads." Please, please go do some actual research since you still don't grasp what we're talking about here.
If I buy a movie, then play a 30 second clip of it on YouTube, I have participated in possible copyright infringement. If I buy a movie and then rip it to play on my tablet, I have participated in copyright infringement. If I buy SimCity, then hack it to play offline, I have participated in copyright infringement.
Not one of these examples involve illegal downloads. Yet all would be considered violations under copyright law and the six strikes policy. None of these things are unethical or immoral.
You do understand the difference between something that is unethical and something that is illegal, right?
On the post: Government Can Keep Key Emails With Hollywood Lobbyists About 'Six Strikes' Secret
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Huh, so it's OK for the police to set up cameras in your house and watch you 24 hours a day? Hey, you don't have anything to hide, right?
Hey, wait a minute! You're using your neighbor's lawnmower! YOU MUST HAVE STOLEN IT! You say he let you borrow it? OK, we'll just arrest you until you can prove that it wasn't stolen.
Yeah, no problem with this.
On the post: EA Labels President: DRM Is A Failed Strategy, But SimCity Didn't Have Any DRM
Re: Re: Re:
The point is players should have the OPTION of both. There's nothing inherently wrong with the multiplayer. But what if I don't want to bother with other people's cities? What if I just want to make my own metropolis and burn it to the ground? The game even has a mode like this...yet you still need to be connected online. Why?
You even say that you don't have to participate in the online economy. So if you choose not to, why do you still need to be online? At least Starcraft II has an offline mode.
Which incidentally is the key to all of this. Online games are fine. Multiplayer features are fine. It's only when you take a logically single-player game and force online connectivity that you p*ss people off. People don't mind Steam's DRM because it's fairly unobtrusive; if you lose internet connectivity you simply press "Restart in Offline Mode" and continue on your merry way. And in return you get a lot of great game enhancing features; automatic updates, sales and stable downloads, *optional* cloud saving, and unlimited installation across your account. Origin and SimCity took only the annoying part (DRM) and none of the benefits...then made that DRM *worse*.
Then they have the gall to act surprised when this bugs people. Just wow.
On the post: Government Can Keep Key Emails With Hollywood Lobbyists About 'Six Strikes' Secret
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think "freeloader is an apt term for someone who takes something of value, to which they;'re unentitled without due compensation.
What is a pirate stealing? Please, explain this to me. If I walk in to a Wal Mart and look at a poster, then walk out of the store without buying it, did I just steal that poster? Or if I buy the poster, and take it home and then draw mustaches on the people in the poster, and there's a sticker on the back that says "By opening this poster, you agree to not modify this poster in any way.", did I just steal the poster? What if I take a picture in my room, and the poster is in the background, now did I steal the poster? Please, take your time.
There has never been more distribution, more content and greater access to the creation of content than there is today.
This has NOTHING to do with copyright. This is in spite of copyright and the entertainment industry. All this new content, all this greater access has been fought tooth and nail. Does HBO legally allow me to purchase the new episodes of Game of Thrones the day they're released, to watch on any device I own? No. Why? I'll tell you one thing, it's not because they can't. It's because they won't. Not at any price. That's restriction of distribution, not more access. The only reason we have the access we do is because the demand is so overwhelming they simply can't ignore. The fact is that the raw *service* provided by piracy is better than most legal distribution systems.
On the post: Government Can Keep Key Emails With Hollywood Lobbyists About 'Six Strikes' Secret
Re: Re: Re:
Citation needed. I have not seen a single report that demonstrates evidence the six strikes system, which to my knowledge has not even been particularly advertised (kind of silly to put out a "punishment" if no one knows about it; great deterrent there). This is pure conjecture and most likely not true.
The part about your post that is so incredibly small-minded is the use of the term "freeloader." You obviously have no clue what the conflict relating to copyright even is. This issue is not, and never really has been, a conflict between people who want free stuff (the "pirates") and the entertainment industry who just wants to be paid for their product. The issue is that the entertainment industry has legislated, through copyright, the ability to compete with complete disregard for consumer demand by making competition illegal.
It sickens me to see someone trying to take the moral high ground when they don't even know what the conflict is.
On the post: Get Ready For DRM On Physical Goods
Re: We do this all of the time-- it's called public policy
It is artificial scarcity because the development costs are heavily self-imposed. License costs, $3,675 dollar 3d graphics programs which are only slightly superior to freeware (3d Studio vs. Blender), and publisher limitations all dramatically inflate the cost to create content. Many of these things exist due to legacy industry and backroom deals, not because they have that much inherent value.
As technology improves, and costs to create (as well as barriers to entry) are reduced, the logical thing is for the prices to drop as well. If you expect people to spend $15 for a CD they can burn at home for a cent (or more likely do without the CD completely), which is the same as before that technology existed, you're delusional.
It would be like someone trying to sell a Trio smartphone for $300. It's obsolete technology and no one is going to pay the old price. Gone are the days of idiot consumers who only have the word of advertisements provided by a select few corporations to go on. If consumers aren't willing to pay what you want them to pay, stop making your stuff. Someone else, probably better than you, will fill the void at the price people are willing to pay, and nobody will miss you.
That's reality. Who's really ignoring it?
On the post: Get Ready For DRM On Physical Goods
The only purpose I can think of for DRM is to set up lawsuits via the anti-circumvention clause in the DMCA. That way someone with a legitimate copyright use can be sued due to breaking the ineffective DRM.
OK, the other purpose is so that developers/publishers can put in a check box next to the "anti-piracy" spreadsheet that makes CEOs feel like they're solving the problem. It saddens me that we have such powerful analytical tools available yet we've forgotten how to use the analysis. If only they'd add a "Customers lost due to our business practices" column next to the "Sales lost due to piracy" column we might actually get somewhere.
Unfortunately it's much easier to be a person who places blame on others rather than be a person who takes responsibility for themselves.
On the post: System Used By New Six Strikes CAS, Falsely Identifies Game Mods As NBC TV Shows
Just in case it's not clear:
Point 1: the law assumes innocence until guilt is proved. Accusations are NOT convictions. The six-strikes policy turns accusations into convictions that you must appeal.
Point 2: the six-strikes policy is not a law. It's a policy made up by a corporate entity that has no legal authority.
Point 3: artists have been exploited by the entertainment industry FAR more than every pirate combined. At least pirates let the artist keep the rights to their own work. The industry won't even let them keep that.
Point 4: stop talking.
On the post: 'Video Games Do Not Cause Violence,' According To Former FBI Profiler
Re: Re: Good Point, But
WoW teaches you how to be social *online*, which is used in the vast majority of businesses today. Nonverbal communication is not the only form of human communications (and this is completely ignoring the typical use of emotes in games and online communication).
TV and video games are very different from the perspective of the one participating. TV requires no input from the viewer; you passively accept the story or actions as they happen. Video games require input, reflexes, critical thinking, and social interaction (depending on the game) in order to be successful. You may want to read about "gamification" and how turning traditional passive learning into active "video game" learning has improved retention and application of real-world skills.
I agree that parents need more interaction with their children, but I would argue that it's better to do so by engaging with your children in the video games themselves, not by discouraging them from having fun. You can't fix bad parenting by outlawing video games, music, TV, books, or whatever scapegoat you decide is "destroying the country" today.
Oh, and if the fruits of the garden are our reduced violent crime rates among children, then that's awesome news!
On the post: Japanese Law Enforcement Uses New Copyright Law To Arrest 27 File Sharers
Re: Re: Re: @ Rikuo the obstinate little pirate:
2) Difficulty of creation has no relevance to a creator's rights, it doesn't now, and never has. This is completely off-topic.
3) Law for copyright exists to grant creators a limited exclusive right to a new idea before it is added to the public domain for the improvement of society. This is to incentivise creation.
4) Wrong. Copyright specifies who can distribute original copies. Other individuals can profit besides the original owner. This is painfully obvious if you think about the concept of, I don't know, every store in existence.
5) Technically true. Life + 70 years (or 120+ in the case of corporations) is not effectively limited. Anything that is limited for two lifetimes may as well be unlimited for all practical purposes.
6) There may not be a right to copy, but there is freedom of speech and the freedom to do what I want with things I have. Copyright prevents me from doing something I could otherwise do, therefore it is removing a right by definition. We, as a society, accept this in a limited degree in order to incentivise creation. Since the limitation is gone, and my rights are being ignored, I see no reason why I should respect the rights I am granting another person if they refuse to respect mine.
7) The method of copying is irrelevant, both in reality and in copyright law.
Your all-caps opening is wrong, too. If I buy something, it's mine. I can give it to whoever I want. Copyright is removing that right.
You can copy and paste as many times as you want but it will never be true.
On the post: Music Industry Data: Sales Up, Piracy Down... But It's Not Because Of Any 'Anti-Piracy' Efforts
Re: Re: OOTB?
YES, my points are ALL valid, aligned with facts, or so I believe.
But just because Big Media is bad doesn't make Little Pirates right. My admonition to NOT STEAL applies equally to both groups.
Key words..."NOT STEAL." Piracy is NEVER stealing. If I go into an art gallery and take a painting, that is stealing. If I take a picture of the painting, and post it online, that's (sort of) piracy. Heck, even if I made an exact copy of the painting I still never stole the painting.
If your points are all aligned with "facts" how can you ignore this fact? There can be no debate on this topic. It's like saying that driving without your seatbelt is the same thing as murder. While the ultimate result may be similar (someone dying) the two things are NOT the same, ever.
If you want to engage in an actual debate on a topic it helps to learn the basic concepts first. I recommend looking up the Wikipedia page on "Copyright Infringement", read the link to Dowling v. United States where the courts ruled specifically that copyright infringement is not theft. Note specifically that, under the law, the owner must be "wholly deprived" of the object in question to constitute theft, which piracy never does.
You can believe your points are aligned with facts all you want. Until you learn what a fact is, however, all your opinions are worthless. Extra credit assignment: learn the difference between opinions and facts. Hint: they aren't the same.
On the post: Swedish Pirate Party Stops Hosting The Pirate Bay, But Intends To Sue Anti-Piracy Organization For Unlawful Coercion
Re: Re: Re: "figuring out ways to help provide the public what they want."
Not at all. For that to be true the products would have to be the same. They aren't...the service the consumers demand is not being met by the industry.
Let's use an obvious example. Let's say I want to buy the first two seasons of Game of Thrones from HBO to put on my tablet so I can watch it on the plane. Guess what? There is no legal way to do this. My options are to buy the DVDs and rip them (illegal due to DMCA anti-circumvention), rip the streams from HBO Go (illegal for the same reason and requires a cable subscription to HBO), or...well, pirate them.
The service I want is not being sold. Here's a better comparison to your example...a car company is selling a car that only allows you to drive from 6am-10pm, prevents you from ever driving over the speed limit, requires you to pay again if someone else drives, and doesn't allow you to use aftermarket pieces for your car.
So someone releases an identical car that allows you to drive whenever you want, as fast as you want, with as many drivers as you want, and you can add spinning rims and heavy tinting to your heart's content. Oh, and it's free.
Which are you going to choose? Because that's exactly the situation consumers are in right now...we CAN'T BUY the better product because it isn't being offered by anyone other than the "pirates." Sell something that's even close and legit and people will flock to it (*cough* Netflix, Hulu, both of which are inferior to pirate offerings *cough*).
I was being generous with my public transit comparison because in the real world public transit is at least usually inferior in service to cars and still has a cost. Piracy is free *and* has better service. Remove the better service as a variable and you'll find a lot more people are willing to pay. It's not that complicated.
On the post: Indian Music Industry Exec Says The Unthinkable: 'Internet Piracy Is A Good Thing'
Re: Re: You missed the "in some ways".
Nowhere, not in the law, not in the dictionary, and not in ethics, are "theft" and "copyright infringement" considered the same thing. Even a child knows the difference between taking another child's crayons and drawing the same picture.
Then again, maybe we should all stop trying to have a serious debate against someone who apparently has less concept of property versus intellectual rights than your average kindergartener.
Next >>