[Big Mac]

We're now seeing the prelude to the international ACTA copyright crackdown. As reported by DailyTech, The Obama Administration has released its vision of a copyright crackdown that surely will have the RIAA/MPAA lobbyists very pleased. The proposal, an obvious prelude or complement to the impending imposition of ACTA, seeks to tighten copyright enforcement worldwide and even discusses criminalizing thought crimes committed on search engines, as detailed below.

As I've said in the past, I've been convinced for a while that we're living in a very short-lived golden age period of liberty on the Internet. Now that age of freedom and relatively equality online looks to be coming to an end because monopolistic, Socialistic and Fascistic forces are finally coordinating their efforts to end the Internet as we know it. To crush individual freedoms in the name of protecting the media cartels, their permanent copyright monopolies and ridiculous pricing models.

Originally Posted by DailyTech

"It's smash and grab, no different than a guy walking down Fifth Avenue and smashing the window at Tiffany's and reaching in and grabbing what's in the window." -- U.S. VP Joe Biden

While they may never be able to truly defeat piracy and drive it from the lurking depths of the internet, copyright protection attack-dog organizations like the RIAA and MPAA have long dreamed of the day when they would no longer have to pay for their own copyright enforcement. Now that dream is on the verge of coming true, thanks to the Obama administration.

After countless lobbyist dollars from the music and film industry and a brief "public review", the administration rolled out its vision to fight piracy yesterday afternoon. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden -- whose blunt speech has sometime left him in trouble -- did not mince words.

He states, "This is theft, clear and simple. It's smash and grab, no different than a guy walking down Fifth Avenue and smashing the window at Tiffany's and reaching in and grabbing what's in the window."

The sound-byte comparing downloads to stealing jewels from New York City's finest jeweler quickly lit up the web. Bob Pisano, interim chief executive officer at the Motion Picture Association of America praised the VP, "It is especially critical that the United States has an effective framework for protecting creative content online and enforcing intellectual property rights in the digital environment."

According to the Obama administration, the RIAA, and MPAA, the world economy is pretty much doomed if we don't start prosecuting pirates at home and abroad. Without such a crackdown, businesses will go bankrupt the coalition argues. Biden states, "Piracy hurts, it hurts our economy."

Interestingly, the statements seem to fly in the face of a recent Government Accountability Office study released to U.S. Congress earlier this year, which concluded that there is virtually no evidence for the claimed million dollar losses by the entertainment industry. That study suggested that piracy could even benefit the economy.

Another noteworthy study from three years back notes that virtually every citizen violates intellectual property laws in some way on a daily basis.

The White House press release was full of buzz phrases, but short on details. It did however indicate that the U.S. government may increasingly monitor filesharing networks and BitTorrent sites and assist media groups in their prosecution/threat letter efforts. It speaks of improved "law enforcement efforts at the Federal, state and local level."

The biggest effort, though, will be devoted to cracking down on piracy websites in the U.S. and overseas. The administration was short on details of how exactly it would convince piracy-loving nations like China to change their ways, but it did say it would try to do so by "being as public as we possibly can" about infringement.

The press release states, "As we shine the spotlight on foreign governments that have rogue actors doing illicit business within their borders, it's the government's responsibility to respond."

Such efforts have shown mild success. After lots of threats against the Swedish government by the U.S., the European Union nation finally tried admins with the nation's largest torrent site The Pirate Bay last year and found them guilty. The trial was later exposed to be a perversion of the justice system, with the judge who gave the verdict have multiple ties to copyright protection organizations. The verdict -- $3M USD in damages and a year of hard prison time for the admins -- is currently being appealed.

The White House's vision is perhaps a prelude to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which will go before Congress later this year. The bill would make P2P or BitTorrent client development a criminal offense if the distributed software was used for infringement. It also implements an interesting provision called "imminent infringement", which allows the government to charge people who they think might be about to infringe with a civil offense (for example if you searched "torrent daft punk"). This is among the first official "thought crime" provisions to be proposed by the U.S. government. The bill also makes it a criminal offense to bypass DRM.

Ultimately, it should be interesting to see how American taxpayers react to President Obama's decision to spend their money on efforts to prosecute them and try to choke out piracy at home and abroad, particularly when the current evidence is inconclusive of its effects. One thing's for sure, though. Top politicians on both sides of the aisle are firmly behind the music and movie industry anti-piracy and money-collection efforts.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

As I've said in the past, I've been convinced for a while that we're living in a very short-lived golden age period of liberty on the Internet.

Couldn't agree more. I've always thought the Wild West metaphors held water.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

As I've said in the past, I've been convinced for a while that we're living in a very short-lived golden age period of liberty on the Internet. Now that age of freedom and relatively equality online looks to be coming to an end because monopolistic, Socialistic and Fascistic forces are finally coordinating their efforts to end the Internet as we know it. To crush individual freedoms in the name of protecting the media cartels, their permanent copyright monopolies and ridiculous pricing models.

Good. $100,000 mixing desks ain't cheap, and having your shit downloaded off the 'net for free doesn't make 'em any cheaper.

[besson3c]

Big Mac: do you realize how hard it is to really want to discuss this when you take a debate like this and jam up the dial on your rhetoric-o-meter as high as it can go with rhetoric such as "Socialistic and Fascistic forces" right out of the starting gate? Has this ever proven to be a good formula to good discussion? Are you looking for good discussion, or just another outlet to rant (of which you have a zillion)?

[Snow-i]

Besson,

You want to talk rhetoric-o-meter?

Try addressing the substance of his post, and not the delivery method (which we all already know you disagree with).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Besson,

You want to talk rhetoric-o-meter?

Try addressing the substance of his post, and not the delivery method (which we all already know you disagree with).

What's the point? We all can bet how this thread will end up given it's start. I'll be happy to be proven wrong, perhaps I'll participate then.

It's a good subject, why not give it the fighting chance of a productive discussion and debate?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Good. $100,000 mixing desks ain't cheap, and having your shit downloaded off the 'net for free doesn't make 'em any cheaper.

Yet, as libertarian as you are in other areas Doofy, surely you can't support such measures as prosecuting search engine thought crimes?

The fact is, as others have often pointed out, digital information wants to be free. You can turn the whole world into criminals trying to fight that simple truth, but it's only going to create a virtual international police state. I don't want that, and I don't think you want that, either. If copyright infringement is that damaging to your bottom line, I think you have to figure out other ways to monetize your product.

There's only one analogous example to the grip of the media cartels that I can think of. Government and other organized labor employees are destroying the industrialized world with their lavish pensions and other benefits. They work 30 years and then get guaranteed pensions for the rest of their lives even while the countries they're sucking dry are going into national bankruptcy. Politicians naturally assume they'll just raise taxes ever higher in order to pay off these corrupt deals. May people know about the serious financial problems posed to the US by the public entitlements of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. But nearly no one discusses the fact that Government Employee Entitlement costs are almost as large as the public Entitlements.

Similarly, with copyright protected media, the creator produces something once and then expects to receive guaranteed income from it forever. But in this case it's not even the original creator who gets most of the recurring revenue - it's the media cartel that distributes his or her product. Despite the fact that the march of technology has changed the way we interact with distributed media, some still expect to get rewarded financially in the same fashion that they were rewarded prior to the consumer Internet age.

Now here's the thing, I have a limited amount of respect for copyrights. I think granting a limited-time narrow monopoly to the creator of a given product is a desirable trade-off to support the creation of works of art and science. But the key word is limited. The Constitution calls for limited-time copyrights, but as time has gone on copyrights have gone from limited to unlimited, and now the media cartels want to turn the Internet into a virtual police state to enforce their permanent monopolies. If enforcement provisions like the ones envisioned go into effect, we're on a very slippery slope to the death of the Internet as we know it. If a person can be prosecuted for a random search term that may draw the wrath of the media cartels, then that means it's no longer safe to surf various sites and click links to different pages indiscriminately. Remember, we're talking about merely searching for terms that the media cartels think may lead to an infringing download, not the infringing download itself. What this is referred to as in the law is an "inchoate offense" - a violation of the law the precedes the actual illegal act, and it's a very controversial subject because of the far-reaching implications involved. When the media cartels get that kind of power over our online lives, it means they've taken things way, way, too far. And make no mistake - this will be a slippery slope. If government can snoop on search engine keywords to help the media cartels, what's next? Logically keyword searches about anything that could arouse even minor suspicion could put a user in danger. What this announcement looks like to me is a "War on Digital Piracy," and just like the "War on Drugs" it will certainly ensnare many innocent people, erode liberties and be of dubious value - if not harmful in all respects.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Big Mac: do you realize how hard it is to really want to discuss this when you take a debate like this and jam up the dial on your rhetoric-o-meter as high as it can go with rhetoric such as "Socialistic and Fascistic forces" right out of the starting gate? Has this ever proven to be a good formula to good discussion? Are you looking for good discussion, or just another outlet to rant (of which you have a zillion)?

Besson, I created this thread. Part of the rules of this forum are that we can't post an article and run - we have to express our opinions on what we're posting. That's all that I did - I gave my view.

Is this a Socialist move? Yes, I believe it is because I believe that the current Administration has an undeniable Socialist bend, and an aspect of Socialist regimes is the clamping down on liberties. Remember, this announcement can't be blamed on President GWB. (Granted, I know ACTA has been in negotiation since Bush, but this announcement isn't directly tied to ACTA.) Is this a Fascist move? Yes, I believe it is because I know that this proposed government intervention would not have been announced without a corrupt partnership between the private media cartels and the government, and aside from that the virtual police state this announcement envisions smacks to me of fascism.

Now that's my subjectively informed opinion on the matter. You may differ, and if so great. But why attack what I wrote when you could instead choose to ignore my opinion and just discuss your view of the news item in question (as Snow-i has suggested)? Is one sentence of mine truly that powerful that it stops you in your tracks, prevents you from thinking about the core issue and causes you to dwell only on one short aspect of my post? If so, I didn't know my words had that much power over people. I thank you for the compliment, I suppose. But I would ask that if you actually want to have a productive discussion and debate, have it! Ignore what you find so controversial in my original post - one simple statement that I stand by as valid - and talk about the real subject.

[besson3c]

Okay, maybe I spoke too prematurely... I apologize for what I wrote, maybe this thread has some hope.

How would these so-called "thought crimes" be enforced? This seems extremely vague to me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The fact is, as others have often pointed out, digital information wants to be free. You can turn the whole world into criminals trying to fight that simple truth, but it's only going to create a virtual international police state. I don't want that, and I don't think you want that, either. If copyright infringement is that damaging to your bottom line, I think you have to figure out other ways to monetize your product.

What about it wants to be free? I would say it has the possible illusion of being free because digital information is intangible, but might this just the way we think about it rather than the actual reality? Why does a digital representation of a track want to be free more than owning the physical media?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yet, as libertarian as you are in other areas Doofy, surely you can't support such measures as prosecuting search engine thought crimes?

I don't support that bit of it. Unless it means Google dying, of course, in which case I support it completely.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If copyright infringement is that damaging to your bottom line, I think you have to figure out other ways to monetize your product.

I'm not going to argue that again. You'll have to do a search.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Similarly, with copyright protected media, the creator produces something once and then expects to receive guaranteed income from it forever. But in this case it's not even the original creator who gets most of the recurring revenue - it's the media cartel that distributes his or her product.

Independent here. And I get screwed by piracy as much as those signed to the cartels. See, nobody ever bothers to check if the data they're downloading belongs to a cartel or to an individual - they just do it anyway.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Now here's the thing, I have a limited amount of respect for copyrights. I think granting a limited-time narrow monopoly to the creator of a given product is a desirable trade-off to support the creation of works of art and science.

Now here's the thing: I created the data, so as far as I'm concerned, I own it. It is *not* public property - it's mine. Should I deem fit to licence it so that you may enjoy the use of it, that doesn't alter the fact that the data's still mine.

Any other position on this matter is communistic. Period. You're not turning commie on me are you Biggie?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Good. $100,000 mixing desks ain't cheap, and having your shit downloaded off the 'net for free doesn't make 'em any cheaper.

Well hey, at least you're not a hypocrite.

http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...t/#post3975623

Originally Posted by Doofy 

What on earth is a Silverlight?

And ITV's not still going, is it? Shouldn't every character in every show have topped themselves by now with the misery of it all?
(I haven't actually seen a TV show in years. YouTube, DVDs and *cough*stolen files*cough* only here.)

Quick! Deflect and call me a Brian or claim I'm stalking you or something, but whatever you do, don't address the issue directly!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Well hey, at least you're not a hypocrite.

http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...t/#post3975623

Stolen files are always replaced with purchased DVDs, because I'm honest*. I only use torrents to time-shift (ever tried watching a South Park ep six months after release? You miss half the jokes because you've forgotten what was happening that week). Even if I had a TV, most shows I'm interested in (that's US ones) are delayed by weeks (or months), so you buggers have already posted all the spoilers and screwed it up.

* Most people aren't.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Quick! Deflect and call me a Brian or claim I'm stalking you or something, but whatever you do, don't address the issue directly!

Dude, you're not getting it. You're not a Brian. You're the Brian.

[Laminar]

Gotcha. The rationalization is that you're better than everyone else. Makes sense.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Gotcha. The rationalization is that you're better than everyone else. Makes sense.

How did you work that one out?

I'm better than you, for sure, but everyone else? Where did I state that?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I'm better than you and everybody else, besson3c

Here's your smoking gun.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Here's your smoking gun.

That doesn't appear to have one of those little arrow thingies to the right of the quote, Bess. I think you made that quote up.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

That doesn't appear to have one of those little arrow thingies to the right of the quote, Bess. I think you made that quote up.

You're a bag of beans.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Now that age of freedom and relatively equality online looks to be coming to an end because monopolistic, Socialistic and Fascistic forces are finally coordinating their efforts to end the Internet as we know it. To crush individual freedoms in the name of protecting the media cartels, their permanent copyright monopolies and ridiculous pricing models.

Why didn't you say "capitalistic, socialistic, and fascistic" forces? The movie and music industries are *nowhere* close to a monopoly.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The fact is, as others have often pointed out, digital information wants to be free.

What a strange, anthropomorphic "fact."

Does your medical information "want" to be free? How about information on your voting history, internet browsing, or sexual habits?

The real fact is: information doesn't "want" anything.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

INow here's the thing: I created the data, so as far as I'm concerned, I own it. It is *not* public property - it's mine. Should I deem fit to licence it so that you may enjoy the use of it, that doesn't alter the fact that the data's still mine.

False. You only own data if the gov't has decided granting you a limited monopoly has socially beneficial effects. That's very different from physical property.

An interesting analysis of copyright: Johanna Blakely: Lessons from fashion's free culture No copyrights for tattoos, food recipies, fashion, perfumes, furniture designs, none of which are hurt without them.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, maybe I spoke too prematurely... I apologize for what I wrote, maybe this thread has some hope.

Thank you.

How would these so-called "thought crimes" be enforced? This seems extremely vague to me.

I don't know because I haven't read up on it completely yet, and I think the proposal itself is vague. But what is suggested is that a simple keyword search of "Metallica Master of Puppets download" would put you on a government list of "imminent infringers" and may subject you to civil or criminal legal penalties or threats of penalties. The prospects in terms of threats to liberties and privacy are mind-blowing if such an enforcement regime is enacted.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What about it wants to be free? I would say it has the possible illusion of being free because digital information is intangible, but might this just the way we think about it rather than the actual reality? Why does a digital representation of a track want to be free more than owning the physical media?

I didn't make up the saying "information wants to be free," but here's my take on it in this context: Digital content has been easily manipulated by consumers for more than a decade now, ever since broadband started becoming popular and people got CD burners. Digital content is at its lowest level just 1s and 0s that can be manipulated in various ways. Attempts to curtail the ability to copy and manipulate digital information - DRM and other anti copying techniques - are usually not all that effective and often defeated, although on closed platforms like game consoles and cell phones there are exceptions. But it's more of a rule that digital information can be copied than not. And to the extent that purely digital information can be copied, it is said that it wants to be free. And when purely digital information is copied, perfect copies can be made without depriving anyone else of the initial work. When a tangible good is stolen the original owner is deprived of his or her ownership of that good, but that is not the case when files are copied. That's why digital copying is usually not theft by definition but copyright infringement.

Digital copyright infringement is morally wrong. I definitely agree with that because I respect intellectual property and copyrights (just not in an unrestricted sense). On the other hand, unlimited copyrights and the abuses of the media cartels aren't good things. When the industrial revolution broke out in England, Americans stole intellectual property owned by others by smuggling out designs for machinery and reproducing them here in the US. Was that the right thing to do morally? Certainly not. But think about what would have happened if we had had strong intellectual property laws on the books back then and English companies were able to maintain an unlimited monopoly on their industrial designs. The course of human history would have been much different, and I don't think that theoretical monopoly would have been too fair to the rest of the world. Similarly, I still hold a lot of resentment toward Bill Gates and Microsoft for stealing what was rightfully Apple's intellectual property - Mac UI concepts. But if Sculley had not signed over the rights to the Mac and Apple had been successful in defending its rights to the Mac GUI, where would computing be today? If Apple had gained a monopoly over GUI based OSs, then it's entirely possible that today there would be only Macs running something like Mac OS 8 or 9 and PCs still running DOS.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I don't support that bit of it. Unless it means Google dying, of course, in which case I support it completely.

Didn't know you were so anti-Google. So we agree at least to some extent about the Google virtual police state. Now if I could make the choice between a free Internet with the level of copyright infringement through illicit downloads we have today and a virtual police state Internet with substantially less copyright infringement, I'd choose the former any day of the week. I think we differ in that regard.

I'm not going to argue that again. You'll have to do a search.

I don't mean to offend. I do have some vague recollection of that previous discussion. It's my honest contention that ultimately one cannot expect to go against the tide of technological and societal trends. Music producers and distributors had really strong business models back before the days of the modern digital age. Back when music was on vinyl, they had nearly total control. Then with tapes there became the possibility of copying for the first time, but it was on a very small scale. CDs again were a very safe distribution medium until we got to the Internet, CD burner and MP3 player age. Now the rules have changed drastically, and just like the MPAA desperately wanted to block VHS from the homes before they figured out they could make tons of money from home video sales, the media cartels would like to turn back the clock. Since they can't do that their next best option is to get their bought-off elected officials to do their bidding, and if they're not stopped they're going to ruin the Internet - the most powerful and the most democratic communication medium in the history of planet.

Independent here. And I get screwed by piracy as much as those signed to the cartels. See, nobody ever bothers to check if the data they're downloading belongs to a cartel or to an individual - they just do it anyway.

And that's not morally right, it's definitely wrong. But the question is how to go about enforcing your rights because there has to be a balance. If I had my way copyrights and patents would be ironclad and respected for a short period of years, maybe four, after which they would be released from full protection for another period of years during which people could copy freely but authors and inventors would still have the right to distribute for profit as they pleased; finally, after say 20 years, the work would go into the public domain (while being credited to the original author). But just because theoretically that's what I'd like to see, that doesn't mean such a thing is at all practicable in the real tech world - even assuming that media producers would ever go along with that kind of reform (when we know they would not).

What I don't support are permanent copyrights and patents. I don't support the media cartels randomly going after alleged offenders with big legal threats as they have been for years. And I absolutely don't support the kind of draconian copyright enforcement envisioned by the Obama Administration, the kind that will likely be forced on the world when ACTA finally leaves its secret negotiation phase. I would rather have no copyrights whatsoever than the type of unjust enforcement that we've seen so far and of the type that we are now seeing come down from this administration and the corrupt paymasters it takes marching orders from.

Now here's the thing: I created the data, so as far as I'm concerned, I own it. It is *not* public property - it's mine. Should I deem fit to licence it so that you may enjoy the use of it, that doesn't alter the fact that the data's still mine.

I know that it's morally yours and legally yours, but to what lengths are you prepared to go to (or support others going to) in order to enforce your/their rights? Technology has radically altered the landscape, as I said before. And unless we all throw out our personal computers to switch en masse to the world of corporate walled gardens like the iPlatforms, digital copying will remain a fact of life. That can either be accepted or we can allow the cartels to steer world governments into muzzling the Internet - and you can be sure once governments step in to start regulating Internet copyright infringement in a serious way, that will only be the beginning of government control. What a tragedy of epic proportions it would be if we were to allow Internet freedom to slip from between our fingers in favor of government command and control, all because the media cartels want to prop up ancient business models.

And btw, if you truly want to have total control over your product, there's one fool proof way to achieve that: never release it to anyone and keep all your copies encrypted and locked away. But if you want to publish your work you're either going to accept some level of copyright infringement or go along with the media cartels in their attempt to bring government in to destroy the Internet as we know it. Those are the choices as I see them currently. Other media creators have seen that fighting technology and threatening their consumer base doesn't work very well. As I'm sure you're aware, some have been experimenting with direct digital distribution. Are they seeing success? I frankly haven't researched the subject from that angle to know, but they're trying creative solutions that work with today's market instead of trying to fight the last war that was lost long ago. Also, many artists complain that they don't make as much money off of iTunes, but most of them know that they can either play ball with Apple or go somewhere else. iTunes does, however, prove that there's a huge market for legal downloads if they're cheap enough for the market to tolerate.

Any other position on this matter is communistic. Period. You're not turning commie on me are you Biggie?

G-d forbid. I love free markets and capitalism. I hate monopolistic/cartel controlled markets and fascistic government controls. And I define it this way: If you support the copyright enforcement vision of the Administration (and most likely of ACTA), then you support creeping fascistic control over our lives online. I reject that vision and anything similar thereto because I value individual rights over and above copyrights.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Stolen files are always replaced with purchased DVDs, because I'm honest*. I only use torrents to time-shift (ever tried watching a South Park ep six months after release? You miss half the jokes because you've forgotten what was happening that week). Even if I had a TV, most shows I'm interested in (that's US ones) are delayed by weeks (or months), so you buggers have already posted all the spoilers and screwed it up.
* Most people aren't.

Then you unfortunately too are guilty of copyright infringement, Doofy. You may be able to justify or rationalize your behavior, and it may well be true that you're less at fault if you indeed later buy the media you previously enjoyed. But by your definition copyrights grant the author complete control over distribution, so any violation of the author's rights to control how the media is distributed equals copyright infringement. And the other fact is, if you were to get caught by the cartels or soon a government monitor working for them, you would be presumed guilty of infringement and your attempt to rationalize what you did would not fly in a court of law (assuming you even had the resources to fight that far). They would not be lenient on you; even if there were some sympathy for your defense, who's to say that you actually were going to buy the product later on when it became available in your home market? The infringement occurred at the time it happened, and the owner can hold you to account regardless of even your very reasonable justifications for your actions. You can also test your view by placing the shoe on the other foot: If you were the producer of the media in question and you found out about a person "time-shifting" your property, would you have the same sympathy for that offense?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

We're now seeing the prelude to the international ACTA copyright crackdown. As reported by DailyTech, The Obama Administration has released its vision of a copyright crackdown that surely will have the RIAA/MPAA lobbyists very pleased. The proposal, an obvious prelude or complement to the impending imposition of ACTA, seeks to tighten copyright enforcement worldwide and even discusses criminalizing thought crimes committed on search engines, as detailed below.

As I've said in the past, I've been convinced for a while that we're living in a very short-lived golden age period of liberty on the Internet. Now that age of freedom and relatively equality online looks to be coming to an end because monopolistic, Socialistic and Fascistic forces are finally coordinating their efforts to end the Internet as we know it. To crush individual freedoms in the name of protecting the media cartels, their permanent copyright monopolies and ridiculous pricing models.

Couldn't agree more. It's very disturbing that Obama has decided to continue the socialistic kowtowing to the RIAA/MPAA that began under Bush's admin known as ACTA. We can only hope that other countries with governments less easily influenced/corrupted will be able to kill ACTA.

[besson3c]

I didn't make up the saying "information wants to be free," but here's my take on it in this context: Digital content has been easily manipulated by consumers for more than a decade now, ever since broadband started becoming popular and people got CD burners. Digital content is at its lowest level just 1s and 0s that can be manipulated in various ways. Attempts to curtail the ability copy and manipulate digital information - DRM and other anti copying techniques - are usually not all that effective and often, although on closed platforms like game consoles and cell phones there are exceptions. But it's more of a rule that digital information can be copied than not. And to the extent that purely digital information can be copied, it is said that it wants to be free. And when purely digital information is copied, perfect copies can be made without depriving anyone else of the initial work. When a tangible good is stolen the original owner is deprived of his or her ownership of that good, but that is not the case when files are copied. That's why digital copying is usually not theft by definition but copyright infringement.

I know you didn't make this up.

I think this attitude is something that the general public will simply need to change, because it is not sustainable to leave it the way it is. Perhaps most people have been blindsided by the notion of data ownership and the value of this digital content because they haven't really had to consider what sort of value those intangible 1s and 0s have, but I think this will have to change and we are arguably seeing it change with, for instance, Facebook overstepping their bounds in the minds of many people with their trying to monetize those 1s and 0s that some feel they shouldn't be entitled to do considering the nature of the ownership of this data. These people probably don't feel that information about them wants to be free.

The same thing needs to happen with piracy. Just because digital content has different properties that physical forms don't have doesn't mean it, in fact, wants to be "free".

The other possibly unsustainable part of the internet is that every *service* is free: free news, free email, free website creation, etc. etc. This might also be a symptom of people being unable to recognize the value of digital content.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And that's not morally right, it's definitely wrong. But the question is how to go about enforcing your rights because there has to be a balance. If I had my way copyrights and patents would be ironclad and respected for a short period of years, maybe four, after which they would be released from full protection for another period of years during which people could copy freely

F that. Forty years, maybe.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I know that it's morally yours and legally yours, but to what lengths are you prepared to go to (or support others going to) in order to enforce your/their rights?

Firing squad.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Technology has radically altered the landscape, as I said before. And unless we all throw out our personal computers to switch en masse to the world of corporate walled gardens like the iPlatforms, digital copying will remain a fact of life.

This is going to change very shortly. You'll start to see "professional" content only available on a pay-for basis. Murdoch has recently started this trend by taking The Times behind a paywall. It'll all go this way soon, so get used to it.

There's no "democratisation" process via the Internet - it's all an illusion... It'd be no big loss if the whole thing collapsed tomorrow. We lived free lives before the free-for-all Internet, and we'll live free lives after it.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Then you unfortunately too are guilty of copyright infringement, Doofy. You may be able to justify or rationalize your behavior, and it may well be true that you're less at fault if you indeed later buy the media you previously enjoyed. But by your definition copyrights grant the author complete control over distribution, so any violation of the author's rights to control how the media is distributed equals copyright infringement. And the other fact is, if you were to get caught by the cartels or soon a government monitor working for them, you would be presumed guilty of infringement and your attempt to rationalize what you did would not fly in a court of law (assuming you even had the resources to fight that far). They would not be lenient on you; even if there were some sympathy of your defense, who's to say that you actually were going to buy the product later on when it became available in your home market? The infringement occurred at the time it happened, and the owner can hold you to account regardless of even your very reasonable justifications for your actions.

I'll take that risk. Complainants would be informed that they have a choice: I can either time-shift and buy, or I can simply not bother and they lose a sale. They'll see my side of it.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You can also test your view by placing the shoe on the other foot: If you were the producer of the media in question and you found out about a person "time-shifting" your property, would you have the same sympathy for that offense?

There's no need to time shift my material, since I release to all markets simultaneously. If I don't release to a market, then that's my fault and I can't expect the occupants of said market to not acquire the product via illicit means.

Here's what I'm OK with:
- Time shifting.
- View/listen before buy.
- "Stealing" material which was once in public view but can't be purchased (e.g. last 8 seasons of NYPD Blue).
- Transfer to alternate media for ease of use (i.e. DVD to file for laptop use).

I've absolutely no problems with people using material which they will buy (or have bought). It's the freeloaders I have a problem with. And don't try and kid me that there's not a load of them.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The other possibly unsustainable part of the internet is that every *service* is free: free news, free email, free website creation, etc. etc. This might also be a symptom of people being unable to recognize the value of digital content.

Next five years there's going to be some major changes, I reckon. By the time we hit the bottom of this current financial problem, nothing will be free.

[hyteckit]

Socialism?

More like capitalism.


Communism: creative commons. Free to download and free to use.
Socialism: free to download, pay what you want
Capitalism: we'll freakin sue the sh*t out of you if you download our stuff even if you bought it on a different medium

Countries on copyrighted material

US: We'll sue you if you freakin download even if you purchased it on a different medium.
Canada: Eh, P2P and digital downloads for personal use is okay.
China: Copyright? WTF is that?

[Wiskedjak]

Certainly the 1's and 0's have value. But, I think if the content owners would simply allow those of us that purchased music and movies the flexibility of use that is easy as a result of digital content (personal backups, time shifting, format shifting) we would see a significant drop in piracy. I have no financial need to pirate content, but I hate it when I miss an episode of a TV series and have no easy way to watch that episode (iTunes helps, but I'd prefer to *rent* a TV episode rather than purchase it).

And, with the cost to duplicate and distribute content reduced to almost $0, the cost to purchase should also be reduced. It should drop even more if I purchase direct from the content owner, cutting out the retailer/middleman. Cut out the label/middleman (barely needed today) and the price should drop significantly.

According to Moses Avalon's 1998 Book, Confessions of a Record Producer, the proceeds of a then-$17 CD would typically be distributed as follows:
Retailer: $5 (29.4%),
Record label: $4.92 (28.9%),
Distributor: $2.40 (14.1%),
Giveaways: $1.80 (10.6%),
Duplication/recording: $1.10 (5.8%),
Artist royalty: 83 cents (4.9%),
Songwriter license: 60 cents (3.5%),
Producer royalty: 27 cents (1.6%),
Musicians union: 8 cents (0.4%).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Certainly the 1's and 0's have value. But, I think if the content owners would simply allow those of us that purchased music and movies the flexibility of use that is easy as a result of digital content (personal backups, time shifting, format shifting) we would see a significant drop in piracy. I have no financial need to pirate content, but I hate it when I miss an episode of a TV series and have no easy way to watch that episode (iTunes helps, but I'd prefer to *rent* a TV episode rather than purchase it).

And, with the cost to duplicate and distribute content reduced to almost $0, the cost to purchase should also be reduced. It should drop even more if I purchase direct from the content owner, cutting out the retailer/middleman. Cut out the label/middleman (barely needed today) and the price should drop significantly.

According to Moses Avalon's 1998 Book, Confessions of a Record Producer, the proceeds of a then-$17 CD would typically be distributed as follows:
Retailer: $5 (29.4%),
Record label: $4.92 (28.9%),
Distributor: $2.40 (14.1%),
Giveaways: $1.80 (10.6%),
Duplication/recording: $1.10 (5.8%),
Artist royalty: 83 cents (4.9%),
Songwriter license: 60 cents (3.5%),
Producer royalty: 27 cents (1.6%),
Musicians union: 8 cents (0.4%).

There is definitely a balance in here that we haven't found yet. Some of the anti-piracy stuff can be overreaching, although fighting content owners tooth and nail is not the answer either, nor do I accept the notion that we should treat digital content differently than physical content.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

... fighting content owners tooth and nail is not the answer either,

Agreed. Personally, I simply refuse to consume content from content owners that are unwilling to recognize the evolving desires of consumers. I stopped downloading music back in 2003, stopped downloading movies when the AppleTV was released and stopped downloading TV 2 years ago when Apple finally started offering a decent selection of TV to Canada. All of my audio content is provided by podcasters and indie artists that offer their content for free/optional donation/small fee; if it's good, I'll gladly donate or purchase the physical form of their product (if it exists)

nor do I accept the notion that we should treat digital content differently than physical content.

Not in the legal sense, I agree. But, there are a lot of opportunities for innovation with digital content that we should be taking advantage of but is being limited by overbearing copyright protections.

[Big Mac]

Slashdot: Experts Say ACTA Threatens Public Interest

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

F that. Forty years, maybe.

Okay, perhaps four years is too short, but forty years is definitely too long. Most people will abide by laws if they're reasonable. But most people can't expect to live more than 80 years optimistically speaking, so I don't think even 40 year (half a lifetime) copyright terms are reasonable.

This is going to change very shortly. You'll start to see "professional" content only available on a pay-for basis. Murdoch has recently started this trend by taking The Times behind a paywall. It'll all go this way soon, so get used to it.

You mean the WSJ right? Pay walls are all fine and good. Companies are free to limit their audience to paying members if they wish. But that doesn't mean the general trend is in that direction. When the dotcom bubble burst many free, low quality Internet services went away. I thought that would mark the end of free services online, but I didn't foresee Google and all of the free services it delivers.

There's no "democratisation" process via the Internet - it's all an illusion... It'd be no big loss if the whole thing collapsed tomorrow. We lived free lives before the free-for-all Internet, and we'll live free lives after it.

I didn't say there was a democratization process going on via the Internet. I said the Internet is the most democratic broadcast medium ever devised. And it's absolutely true. A random person who is completely unknown can create a highly polished web site that has the capability to reach untold numbers of people, assuming he has ability to deliver popular content to the public. A small not-for-profit organization with very limited resources can have a very strong online presence, strong enough to rival the efforts of well-financed organizations hundreds of times larger. A startup company can devise a unique new Internet platform like Facebook or Twitter and go from nothing to a great big, world-changing enterprise over night.

Books and newspapers never offered that kind of power to the individual or small scale entity. Nor did radio, film or television. Only the Internet offers a world-wide potential market and broadcast medium through which to deliver news, views, products and services with very minimal to zero barriers to entry (as in cost or regulation). That's what I mean about the Internet as a tool of democracy. There is no argument in my mind that the Internet is by far the most powerful tool the individual has ever had access to. It's also one of a few barriers left to governments depriving citizens of their rights in large scale ways, since so much of the traditional news media is subservient to the government it operates under.

I'm not saying we didn't have liberty and power as individuals before the Internet, but if you think that the demise of the lightly regulated, low-cost Internet we know today wouldn't be an immense blow to our liberties, you're just not thinking straight on the topic, bro.

I'll take that risk. Complainants would be informed that they have a choice: I can either time-shift and buy, or I can simply not bother and they lose a sale. They'll see my side of it.

I know you'll take that risk. That's what most every other casual copyright infringer says internally when making the choice to download copyrighted content from unapproved sources.

I've absolutely no problems with people using material which they will buy (or have bought). It's the freeloaders I have a problem with. And don't try and kid me that there's not a load of them.

Oh, I know that the vast majority of copyright violators are freeloading and in a real sense taking for free that which does not belong to them. But you yourself rationalize doing it (at least to an extent), and so do most all of the other millions who do. Most people have some sense of right and wrong and don't want to do the wrong thing, but because it's easy to do it and the alternative (acquiring the good legally) can be quite costly or may not even possible at all (in the case of discontinued or not-yet-released products), they go for the illicit download. Can you truthfully state that everything on your hard drives is legitimately bought and paid for? And regardless, aren't you saying to the rest of us, "Do as I say, not as I do"?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

nor do I accept the notion that we should treat digital content differently than physical content.

Physical content like a sculpture? The sculptor doesn't get a cut each time the work is sold. It would follow that a musician would get paid once for writing/recording a song and that's it.

I'm not saying that this is correct or ideal, but if we're going to treat digital media as if it's physical...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Physical content like a sculpture? The sculptor doesn't get a cut each time the work is sold. It would follow that a musician would get paid once for writing/recording a song and that's it.

I'm not saying that this is correct or ideal, but if we're going to treat digital media as if it's physical...

The sculptor would sell access to viewing/sharing access to his work, right? A musician sells a product that has been traditionally shared in a similar way such as when people use to make each other mix tapes and stuff. I don't know if this sort of thing was technically illegal or not, but the recording companies didn't have a field day over this sort of thing. However, and I don't mean this in a legal sense, all of this has gotten complicated by the internet and who is considered a "friend". That's the way I see what has brought about all of these sorts of problems and debates.

I would say that the fact that content can be shared on such a massive scale is a property of digital media. What I was saying was that the inherent value of the media should not be treated any different whether it is physical or digital.

Does this make a little more sense? I'm not satisfied with my phrasing of all of this.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The proposal, an obvious prelude or complement to the impending imposition of ACTA, seeks to tighten copyright enforcement worldwide and even discusses criminalizing thought crimes committed on search engines, as detailed below.

I thought I should point out that the proposal does not say that, nor does the article say it does.

I want the 10 minutes I spent skimming it back.

[Big Mac]

The article certainly does say that the Administration wants to create an "impending infringers" list based on suspect Google keywords. Check the last few paragraphs.

[subego]

But that's part of ACTA. That's what the article says.

I know it might seem nit picky, but I went and read the proposal because you claimed that's where that was said. The people who are interested in doing the same should know that they won't find anything there.

As an aside, I also disagree with the article's assessment that computer piracy is the main focus of the proposal. I'd say it's counterfeit pharmaceuticals.

[Big Mac]

I apologize - you're right the claim is that that provision is in ACTA. And I can't find a direct reference to impending infringer or impending infringement in any discussion of ACTA, either on the Wikipedia article that the DailyTech article linked to or anywhere else. Maybe it's just alarmist rhetoric, but it definitely got me alarmed. Of course, it would help if ACTA weren't being negotiated in complete secret. Why must they be so secretive - what's to gain from it? Or, what do they fear happening if the negotiations are held in public?

[subego]

No worries! I'll see what I can dig up on ACTA.

If what the article says is even close, there's cause for alarm IMO.

[subego]

Here's the "imminent infringement" clause.

Originally Posted by ACTA

ARTICLE 2.5: PROVISIONAL MEASURES

[X. Each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities shall have the authority, at the request of the applicant, to issue an interlocutory injunction intended to prevent any imminent infringement of an intellectual property right [copyright or related rights or trademark]. An interlocutory injunction may also be issued, under the same conditions, against an [infringing] intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right. Each Party shall also provide that provisional measures may be issued, even before the commencement of proceedings on the merits, to preserve relevant evidence in respect of the alleged infringement. Such measures may include inter alia the detailed description, the taking of samples or the physical seizure of documents or of the infringing goods.]

[Big Mac]

Good detective work.

"any imminent infringement of an intellectual property right" is far too broad. Very dangerous.

[subego]

I can't say it sits well with me. Likewise, it's not made clear what the "intermediary" clause is meant to address. Is this where the idea is coming from that p2p developers are going to get squeezed? Maybe that's in a different section.

There's a big issue with any analysis however; this is (beyond being a draft copy of something that's explicitly provisional) only what signatory countries are supposed to do to comply with the treaty. Implementation is up to individual countries. There is no bill that's been put forth. How this will filter down into an actual law is pure conjecture. In addition, this seems to have been proposed by the EU, so it's not preordained the powers that be are interested in giving this any teeth.

That being said, yeah, it could just as easily land as some sort of pre-crime, Minority Report type deal too.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Okay, perhaps four years is too short, but forty years is definitely too long. Most people will abide by laws if they're reasonable. But most people can't expect to live more than 80 years optimistically speaking, so I don't think even 40 year (half a lifetime) copyright terms are reasonable.

If the term was 10 years, most of the general public would only listen to 10 year old music. This would dry revenues for those creating new music, who'd all go and get jobs doing something else. In 10 years' time you'd have no new music (except amateur crap recorded on GarageBand) to listen to.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You mean the WSJ right?

No, I mean The Times.
The Times | UK News, World News and Opinion

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Pay walls are all fine and good. Companies are free to limit their audience to paying members if they wish. But that doesn't mean the general trend is in that direction.

When Murdoch goes paywall, the general trend is going to go in that direction.

With the advent of super-portable devices such as the iPad, the newspapers are facing a challenge: Why would anyone buy a hard copy when they can get a free copy via their iPad? They wouldn't. So, except to see all newspapers go pay-per-view very, very soon.

The free ride is over. Advertising can't support it. The freebie model is broken, unsustainable.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'm not saying we didn't have liberty and power as individuals before the Internet, but if you think that the demise of the lightly regulated, low-cost Internet we know today wouldn't be an immense blow to our liberties, you're just not thinking straight on the topic, bro.

I think you're over-rating the liberty-related usefulness of the 'net.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Oh, I know that the vast majority of copyright violators are freeloading and in a real sense taking for free that which does not belong to them. But you yourself rationalize doing it (at least to an extent), and so do most all of the other millions who do. Most people have some sense of right and wrong

I'm not so sure they do. Freetards are everywhere - "free" has become the main culture of the internet.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

and don't want to do the wrong thing, but because it's easy to do it and the alternative (acquiring the good legally) can be quite costly or may not even possible at all (in the case of discontinued or not-yet-released products), they go for the illicit download. Can you truthfully state that everything on your hard drives is legitimately bought and paid for?

No, I can't. They can remedy this quite easily: Release seasons 5-12 of NYPD Blue on DVD and I'll go buy them.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And regardless, aren't you saying to the rest of us, "Do as I say, not as I do"?

No. I'm saying I don't mind people time-slipping or acquiring out-of-print product via illicit means. It's up to a creator to make sure that a released product is available through legit channels - it's not hard to do in this day and age.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Physical content like a sculpture? The sculptor doesn't get a cut each time the work is sold.

Unless he starts selling resin copies to garden centres.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Sooooooooooo... the "everything is free and available" attitude currently on the internet will be destroyed by the socialist copyright laws being discussed?

Is that the gist of this thread?

greg

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Unless he starts selling resin copies to garden centres.

It's funny that you think duplication costs and labor are comparable.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Good. $100,000 mixing desks ain't cheap, and having your shit downloaded off the 'net for free doesn't make 'em any cheaper.

If the artist work is so damn important and valuable, why don't artists have better security for their works? WHO is it that is leaking the works onto the web in the first place?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

If the artist work is so damn important and valuable, why don't artists have better security for their works? WHO is it that is leaking the works onto the web in the first place?

Ummm. You've really no idea how stuff gets onto the Pirate Bay (etc.)?
If not, maybe this isn't the thread for you.

[finboy]

It just pains me to see so many here who have a good head on their shoulders caught on the wrong side of copyrights.

Is it because you like your HD full of torrent DVDs? Or your iPod full of free music?

I agree that "life plus 70" is probably WAY too long, and there's a lot of orphaned stuff out there that we could get good use of as a society. But the fact is that people won't (usually) work without getting paid. Whether that pay is recognition or whatever is debatable, but copyright violation kills incentives. Tough copyright law probably does too.

But digital media doesn't "yearn to be free." It's somebody's work, for God's sake. Let's keep that in mind. If you WANT to give YOUR WORK away, by all means do so. I have, many times. But I'd also like to get paid for my creative ability and activity.

On a larger level, I think a lot of the controversy here falls back on our tendency (in society) to disregard intellectual work as "work." It is. In fact, it's more harmful to our bodies than digging ditches might be. Working at a desk is just as meaningful as anything else (or can be) but it isn't seen as work. Especially in the Third World and developing economies -- there (as it's become here) it's seen as hitting the lottery or being corrupt (somebody's pal) to get a bureaucrat's job.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

If the artist work is so damn important and valuable, why don't artists have better security for their works? WHO is it that is leaking the works onto the web in the first place?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Ummm. You've really no idea how stuff gets onto the Pirate Bay (etc.)?
If not, maybe this isn't the thread for you.

Actually I do know. Again, why is it so difficult to keep people from your works in progress? Music artists aren't usually that bright. They get ripped off because they aren't careful.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Actually I do know. Again, why is it so difficult to keep people from your works in progress? Music artists aren't usually that bright. They get ripped off because they aren't careful.

Ummm. Most stuff is ripped off after a punter has bought it on CD, ripped it to the HD and uploaded it.

I don't know how other artistes manage to get their works ripped off whilst in progress. Nobody rips off my stuff in progress because (1) I don't work with dodgy people and (2) there's an unwritten rule in my genre that those who deserve to have the crap kicked out of them do get the crap kicked out of them.