In the US we often hear about the statutory damages for copyright infringement. The law states that the copyright owner may seek "instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages".
This is where it gets odd. We have to ask why is there the choice of actual damages and profits vs. statutory damages.
The amount is no less than $750 and no more than $30,000, per infringement, unless the infringement is willful then the award may increase to $150,000 unless the infringer proves that he was unaware of infringing and had no reason to believe he was infringing, then the minimum award is $200, per infringement.
With the exception of the reduced damage for unknowingly committing copyrght infringement. these damages only make sense in one single context; criminal copyright infringement for commercial distribution, and "I think" that is what the law is designed to protect against.
Think about this in terms of culture (which we must preserve with stronger IP laws). Every guy who has ever made a mix tape for his girlfriend on Valentine's Day, is guilty and should have to pay a minimum of $7500 for copying music he paid for and giving it to someone else. If Cary Sherman could get on the interwebs and read that, he would have an orgasm, counting all the money thats owed to him on Valentine's Day.
Re: Selling Content Others Create And Keeping The Profits Is Their Business!
No no no no no. Stop drinking the Kool-aid.
Content companies want you to believe this is just how business is done. So they offer you (the talent) a job and they will pay you well for it, but the cost is that your IP becomes theirs. So the artist has to choose between employment or his protecting his IP. Look at the case of the creators of Superman. When you are faced with starvation and the people that control the distribution tell you that you can give up or rights and eat, or keep your ideas to yourself; that hardly seems like you have the choice to keep your wits about you.
Things have changed now and its far easier for artists to get their work out and many of them will absolutely not give up the rights to their own creations. Image comics appeared on the scene when a bunch of Marvel artists and writers simply would not give up the rights to their creations.
The point is that these companies spend a lot of time and effort telling everyone how copyright laws and enforcement are to protect the artists and to keep all those hard working people employed. If you want to know what content theft really looks like, ask the creator of Ghost Rider or Superman.
I may be wrong, but doesn't copyright extend to the life of the content owner + another 30 years or so? And aren't corporations considered to be "people" now?
This guy's rant is a perfect example of what happens when Stupid and Angry join forces.
He begins with the premise that the young generation whines too much and doesn't vote, so of course they are not represented. He also states that the youth cannot organize and only want free shit. Then he goes on say that politicians might listen to the people when they grow up, own a company, pay taxes, etc. This is followed by saying that protesting against politics has drawn the attention of opponents and strengthened those opponents resolve.
This is all pretty standard troll rhetoric up to that point. Next we are told about the state of America with its massive debt and lack of manufacturing and technological innovation.
Then it all goes pretty silly.
All the blame is then laid directly on the younger generation for being lazy and GREEDY.
Sooooo. The people that don't do anything and don't vote and don't have a voice and can't organize and want free shit, are to blame for the State of America???????
Dude, take a breath and try surfing the web for some facts before you decide to insult people with sheer magnitude of your stupidity.
Yes GREED is one of the biggest problems, but its the GREED from those owners of companies that do have the ear of Congress and work hard to stomp out competition and innovation because they want their free shit (money for doing nothing after stealing the rights of artists is free shit).
I could go on dismantling your pathetic rant, but then I would have to read it again and Im not going to risk an aneurysm.
If the record labels want the artists to stand united with them, they should really try compensating them properly. Paying an artist 50% for the sale/license of their music after recouping any advance should sound like a great deal.
Think about it. The label invested and got that investment back and now gets 50% of the revenue for doing absolutely NOTHING. They have no costs associated with the digital sales. Everything they get is pure profit. How do they react? "But but but... that's not enough, we are a label."
Well it sounds like both sides are ready to negotiate
Neither the RIAA nor MPAA are interested in a dialogue with the opponents of SOPA/PIPA. They fail to realize that these laws were stopped in their tracks by the content industry's CUSTOMERS.
Seems that Sherman followed the invitation to dialogue with a hearty, "We want to talk with you, but you just have to understand that the content industry is right and anyone who opposes us is wrong. So let's sit down and talk until you agree with me."
The trolls can rally around "They just want free shit... they are thieves" or whatever other rhetoric they choose, but the fact is that the paying customers don't want any laws that hinder freedom or innovation on the net.
I think A LOT of American companies already got the point of her article. Instead of worrying about software piracy, they bought software legally then they just outsourced their labor force to manage the large expense of wages and health and safety regulation.
Re: NYT: Radical U.S. Muslims Little Threat, Study Says
"Of about 14,000 murders in the United States last year, not a single one resulted from Islamic extremism, said Mr. Kurzman, a professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina."
If even 1 of the murders in the US was due to Islamic extremism, the problem would still be minuscule. Now think about the reaction. While I agree that the TSA employs A LOT of people, wouldn't that money be better spent on more police officers.
The counter to that is to say "Look at how well the TSA is doing, we prevented terrorism." I say great job, now can we cut back on the 14,000 fucking actual murders and not worry so much about the hypothetical plots to "blow away" the competition.
You clearly didn't understand the point being made. So let me spell it out clearly. I didn't say "Google did not lobby Congress". I said it was not Google's lobbying efforts that made Google an important part of the SOPA/PIPA online protest.
Please note this time the use of the word "online" to describe the protest. Google was not driving the protest, but rather enabled millions to focus their voices. MILLIONS of voices, not well over 100 lobbyists.
Google did play a large role in the SOPA/PIPA protest. Without a doubt that is a true statement.
But it wasn't Google lobbying. Google didn't have to lobby or organize much to play such a large role. Google commands the screen that most eyes are looking at every day.
Seems that if the MPAA wanted their voice heard, they paid the wrong people. They should have just paid Google for a huge ad spot which explained why SOPA/PIPA is such a good thing. They should have paid Facebook to put up ads and given Facebook credits to thousands of people to sign a petition. They should have paid Wikipedia to highlight information about their cause.
The problem with SOPA/PIPA support is that its VERY difficult to convince people during a recession that the people making the most money need government protection, and that protection involves limiting consumers' current methods of communicating and entertainment.
One thing I noticed is that, quite a few of the senators that are supporting PIPA are the ones that have no fear of losing their jobs. They have been in office for a long time and have little to no opposition for re-election.
So yes, they can stay bought with no fear of backlash.
Maybe my math is just THAT bad. I thought the music and movie industries took in roughly $14 billion each in 2011. So thats $28 billion, but lets just say $100 billion for fun. I know there are counterfeits out there and let's not forget software and books, but I'm guessing that ICE and the MPAA and RIAA are more focused one movies and music.
So Lamar Smith wants us to believe that revenues for these companies would double if we eradicate piracy ? If you do adjusted dollars for all the industries impacted by piracy for 1992, will we find that the revenue is double what it is now?
$100 billion loss to the economy??? So all of the money would have to leave the US and not be processed by US financial institutions. Kim Dotcom must be rolling in cash.
I have to say that I do agree with the trolls on a point. Piracy has affected the sales of CDs and DVDs and caused a decline.
With that said, we need to look at other things as well. First, as has been said, sales of CDs and DVDs is not the whole of the music and movie industry. Second, while all the fuss was being made over piracy, the tech was moving forward and new services emerged and many pirates shifted from piracy to those new services.
Continuing to whine about piracy will not bring back the sales of CDs and DVDs. As much as the content industry would love that, it's just not going to happen. Why? Because the best customers for music and movies don't use CDs or DVDs. Try shoving a CD into an iPod and see how that works. Most netbooks don't even have a CD drive. DVRs are taking the place of DVD players. The more tech savvy people get, the less they want plastic discs cluttering their space.
People keep telling the industry that this is about business models. It really is. Piracy has been around for as long as people could record and share media and it will continue even as the next advance in technology occurs.
I guess the constant whining about piracy would be more palatable if the gatekeepers just admitted that they are upset about the loss of control of distribution, and the more level playing field for new entrants to the market.
"The prevailing view, outside of Hollywood, seems to be that IP creators need to accept that copying is here to stay and that criminalising a “victimless” activity is stupid. Make it easy for us to pay for stuff and we won’t have to steal it.
And yet when the victim isn’t a big evil Hollywood mogul (or one of the tens of thousands of people who work for him) but one of our own… well, then IP thieves should be dragged through the streets until they tearfully apologise. What’s the difference?"
Differences
1. The issue of "content theft" was handled on Twitter and in the press. No indication that the victim required law enforcement or lawyers to deal with the "crime".
2. There is no insane statistic about how many developers were put out of work and how much money 37signals lost because of this.
3. You stated the biggest difference already. The "victim" wants an apology; not control of copyright legislation, not to sue the offenders out of existence, not government protection of his business model.
I missed the Super Bowl (*GASP*), but I woke up this morning and I wanted to watch the halftime show. Instinctively I went to YouTube and watched it.
Then I thought about TechDirt and I wondered who owned the content. Then I googled the half time show and could not find an official copy. So I went to NFL.com and couldn't find it and then I went to NBC.com and couldn't find it.
I guess that makes me a pirate because I watched it on YouTube first, but then I thought about it and looked for the "official" version and it just wasn't there. So am I a content thief now? Is YouTube to blame? Why can't the content that we want to watch just be made available? Does SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/TPP fix any of this?
On the post: Sony Says Raising Prices On Whitney Houston Music Was A 'Mistake'
Re: Re: Leave Sony alone!!!
On the post: Sony Says Raising Prices On Whitney Houston Music Was A 'Mistake'
Leave Sony alone!!!
How is she going to support herself? They were only thinking of the artist..er wait a minute.
On the post: Debunking The EU Commission's 'Myths About ACTA'
A Valentine for Cary Sherman
This is where it gets odd. We have to ask why is there the choice of actual damages and profits vs. statutory damages.
The amount is no less than $750 and no more than $30,000, per infringement, unless the infringement is willful then the award may increase to $150,000 unless the infringer proves that he was unaware of infringing and had no reason to believe he was infringing, then the minimum award is $200, per infringement.
With the exception of the reduced damage for unknowingly committing copyrght infringement. these damages only make sense in one single context; criminal copyright infringement for commercial distribution, and "I think" that is what the law is designed to protect against.
Think about this in terms of culture (which we must preserve with stronger IP laws). Every guy who has ever made a mix tape for his girlfriend on Valentine's Day, is guilty and should have to pay a minimum of $7500 for copying music he paid for and giving it to someone else. If Cary Sherman could get on the interwebs and read that, he would have an orgasm, counting all the money thats owed to him on Valentine's Day.
On the post: Sky News Tells Reporters Not To Use Twitter To Break News Without Permission
Ummm Hot News?
I'm sure the AP is happy with Sky News' decision.
On the post: Protecting The Artists? Disney's Marvel Uses Copyright To Crush Already Broke Ghost Rider Creator
Re: Selling Content Others Create And Keeping The Profits Is Their Business!
Content companies want you to believe this is just how business is done. So they offer you (the talent) a job and they will pay you well for it, but the cost is that your IP becomes theirs. So the artist has to choose between employment or his protecting his IP. Look at the case of the creators of Superman. When you are faced with starvation and the people that control the distribution tell you that you can give up or rights and eat, or keep your ideas to yourself; that hardly seems like you have the choice to keep your wits about you.
Things have changed now and its far easier for artists to get their work out and many of them will absolutely not give up the rights to their own creations. Image comics appeared on the scene when a bunch of Marvel artists and writers simply would not give up the rights to their creations.
The point is that these companies spend a lot of time and effort telling everyone how copyright laws and enforcement are to protect the artists and to keep all those hard working people employed. If you want to know what content theft really looks like, ask the creator of Ghost Rider or Superman.
I may be wrong, but doesn't copyright extend to the life of the content owner + another 30 years or so? And aren't corporations considered to be "people" now?
On the post: Mighty Buzzard's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: A New (mis)Understanding...
He begins with the premise that the young generation whines too much and doesn't vote, so of course they are not represented. He also states that the youth cannot organize and only want free shit. Then he goes on say that politicians might listen to the people when they grow up, own a company, pay taxes, etc. This is followed by saying that protesting against politics has drawn the attention of opponents and strengthened those opponents resolve.
This is all pretty standard troll rhetoric up to that point. Next we are told about the state of America with its massive debt and lack of manufacturing and technological innovation.
Then it all goes pretty silly.
All the blame is then laid directly on the younger generation for being lazy and GREEDY.
Sooooo. The people that don't do anything and don't vote and don't have a voice and can't organize and want free shit, are to blame for the State of America???????
Dude, take a breath and try surfing the web for some facts before you decide to insult people with sheer magnitude of your stupidity.
Yes GREED is one of the biggest problems, but its the GREED from those owners of companies that do have the ear of Congress and work hard to stomp out competition and innovation because they want their free shit (money for doing nothing after stealing the rights of artists is free shit).
I could go on dismantling your pathetic rant, but then I would have to read it again and Im not going to risk an aneurysm.
On the post: Schrödinger's Download: Whether Or Not An iTunes Music Sale Is A 'Sale' Depends On Who's Suing
SMH
Think about it. The label invested and got that investment back and now gets 50% of the revenue for doing absolutely NOTHING. They have no costs associated with the digital sales. Everything they get is pure profit. How do they react? "But but but... that's not enough, we are a label."
On the post: If The RIAA Wants To Talk About Misinformation Campaigns, Let's Start With The RIAA's Misinformation Campaign
Well it sounds like both sides are ready to negotiate
Seems that Sherman followed the invitation to dialogue with a hearty, "We want to talk with you, but you just have to understand that the content industry is right and anyone who opposes us is wrong. So let's sit down and talk until you agree with me."
The trolls can rally around "They just want free shit... they are thieves" or whatever other rhetoric they choose, but the fact is that the paying customers don't want any laws that hinder freedom or innovation on the net.
On the post: Newspaper Boss Says Newspapers Need More Money... Because New Media Steals & May 'Destroy Civil Society'
Funding old media
I'm sure they could get some backing for their projects.
On the post: Do The Differences Between Software Piracy And Media Piracy Matter?
Job done.
On the post: Canadian Muslim Who Sends Text Urging His Employees To 'Blow Away' The Competition Arrested As A 'Terror' Suspect
Re: NYT: Radical U.S. Muslims Little Threat, Study Says
If even 1 of the murders in the US was due to Islamic extremism, the problem would still be minuscule. Now think about the reaction. While I agree that the TSA employs A LOT of people, wouldn't that money be better spent on more police officers.
The counter to that is to say "Look at how well the TSA is doing, we prevented terrorism." I say great job, now can we cut back on the 14,000 fucking actual murders and not worry so much about the hypothetical plots to "blow away" the competition.
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Let's be fair
Please note this time the use of the word "online" to describe the protest. Google was not driving the protest, but rather enabled millions to focus their voices. MILLIONS of voices, not well over 100 lobbyists.
On the post: UK Report Blames The Internet For Terrorism, Says ISPs Should Take Down Content
I'm just sick of it
On a side note...
Yeah the US cares about terrorism and has declared war on the evil doers. The KKK has had a website for how long?
Look up terrorism in the US in Wikipedia and see what organization has committed the most terrorist acts on US soil. Yep it's the KKK.
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Let's be fair
But it wasn't Google lobbying. Google didn't have to lobby or organize much to play such a large role. Google commands the screen that most eyes are looking at every day.
Seems that if the MPAA wanted their voice heard, they paid the wrong people. They should have just paid Google for a huge ad spot which explained why SOPA/PIPA is such a good thing. They should have paid Facebook to put up ads and given Facebook credits to thousands of people to sign a petition. They should have paid Wikipedia to highlight information about their cause.
The problem with SOPA/PIPA support is that its VERY difficult to convince people during a recession that the people making the most money need government protection, and that protection involves limiting consumers' current methods of communicating and entertainment.
On the post: Who's Still Backing SOPA/PIPA... And Why?
Re: Honest Politicians!
So yes, they can stay bought with no fear of backlash.
On the post: PolitiFact Trashes Lamar Smith: Says His Claims About Economic Impact Of Piracy Are Flat Out False
huh?
So Lamar Smith wants us to believe that revenues for these companies would double if we eradicate piracy ? If you do adjusted dollars for all the industries impacted by piracy for 1992, will we find that the revenue is double what it is now?
$100 billion loss to the economy??? So all of the money would have to leave the US and not be processed by US financial institutions. Kim Dotcom must be rolling in cash.
On the post: Yet Another (Yes Another!) Study Suggests Hollywood's Problem Is Dumb Release Windows That Cost It Money
LMAO
I thought the studios already make A LOT of money. Maybe if they stop financing Congress they can make even more.
On the post: NY Times: RIAA & MPAA Exaggerate Piracy Impact Stats... But We're Going To Assume They're True Anyway
For all the trolls... I agree with you
With that said, we need to look at other things as well. First, as has been said, sales of CDs and DVDs is not the whole of the music and movie industry. Second, while all the fuss was being made over piracy, the tech was moving forward and new services emerged and many pirates shifted from piracy to those new services.
Continuing to whine about piracy will not bring back the sales of CDs and DVDs. As much as the content industry would love that, it's just not going to happen. Why? Because the best customers for music and movies don't use CDs or DVDs. Try shoving a CD into an iPod and see how that works. Most netbooks don't even have a CD drive. DVRs are taking the place of DVD players. The more tech savvy people get, the less they want plastic discs cluttering their space.
People keep telling the industry that this is about business models. It really is. Piracy has been around for as long as people could record and share media and it will continue even as the next advance in technology occurs.
I guess the constant whining about piracy would be more palatable if the gatekeepers just admitted that they are upset about the loss of control of distribution, and the more level playing field for new entrants to the market.
On the post: What The Curebit Saga Teaches Us About Copyright, Plagiarism And Reputation
Some help for Paul Carr
And yet when the victim isn’t a big evil Hollywood mogul (or one of the tens of thousands of people who work for him) but one of our own… well, then IP thieves should be dragged through the streets until they tearfully apologise. What’s the difference?"
Differences
1. The issue of "content theft" was handled on Twitter and in the press. No indication that the victim required law enforcement or lawyers to deal with the "crime".
2. There is no insane statistic about how many developers were put out of work and how much money 37signals lost because of this.
3. You stated the biggest difference already. The "victim" wants an apology; not control of copyright legislation, not to sue the offenders out of existence, not government protection of his business model.
On the post: White House Petition Demands TPP Process Be Open & Transparent
Off topic
Then I thought about TechDirt and I wondered who owned the content. Then I googled the half time show and could not find an official copy. So I went to NFL.com and couldn't find it and then I went to NBC.com and couldn't find it.
I guess that makes me a pirate because I watched it on YouTube first, but then I thought about it and looked for the "official" version and it just wasn't there. So am I a content thief now? Is YouTube to blame? Why can't the content that we want to watch just be made available? Does SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/TPP fix any of this?
Next >>