US commissions Swedish IP law (WikiLeaks/Pirate Party)

[TheHammer]

How does IP protectionism reduce this harm? Can you show that it does, and to what degree? I don't care about "common sense this is how I think the law works" platitudes. Show some numbers or back off the point.

How much harm is done in the first place? Can you quantify how many people behave this way?

Laws and consequences for breaking the law act as a detterent. Are you really going to argue that point?
Specific to file sharing, there have been a few studies on the matter. Here is one of them:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 1442.x/pdf

From the article, P.11 "perceived certainty of punishment will be negatively associated with
users’ likelihood of future file-sharing activities, was strongly supported. Pearson’s
correlation showed a strong negative relationship between perceived certainty of
punishment and likelihood of future file-sharing activities"

Further, its the fact that if file sharing is viewed as "wrong" socially it also acts as a deterrent:

From the article P.7 "One of the most consistent factors that affects compliance with the law is the
threat of stigma. Socially imposed embarrassment or self-imposed shame has a
strong deterrence effect on committing crimes, regardless of the character of criminal
sanctions (Andenaes, 1974). If file-sharing is perceived as a threat of stigma, the
perception is likely to deter file-sharing activities."

Removal of IP protections would also remove the threat of punishment, and the threat of stigma associated with getting caught. Essentially, with IP protections the "Harm" is limited because the scope of infringement is limited. I don't have numbers for "how bad things would be" if IP laws were not enforced at all since I don't have a magical crystal ball to view this hypothetical scenario.

Even if you don't give a damn about the laws and their implications, you'd still be hard pressed to make a point that spending the cash that the MPAA spends on "stopping piracy" couldn't be better spent on, oh I don't know, hiring better writers.

Irrelevent

Can you show that anything about anti-P2P enforcement works in anyone's best interests with anything more than "common sense"?

I know that you can't answer any of these questions, and you're just going to ignore or side-step them in your next broken-record response, but they haven't gone away.

You keep wanting to make this about P2P and I'm talking about broader piracy and copyright infringement as a whole. I'm all FOR legal P2P file sharing. If you have a legal right to files, then share them. In the strictest sense, illegal P2P itself is probably the least harmful, with some noted benefits to boosting exposure for lesser known artists. Full on Piracy, particulary of software and movies, does result in loss of sales. I know some people have come on and said that they've later bought a game they pirated if they found that they really liked it. But surely they would be the exception rather than the rule. Many file sharers, particularly young people will take and consume media for free and spend their cash elsewhere.

Reform is certainly an option, throwing up your hands and allowing unfettered piracy is not.

Because "common sense", right?

You make it sound like "allowing unfettered piracy" is the end of the world, but this is already happening. Piracy is already as unfettered as it gets, and legal measures make, at best, a few percentage points of difference.

Turns out unfettered piracy leads to rampant growth in the book, movie, and music industries. What a nightmare scenario.

On the contrary, its not even close to unfettered. It takes some effort to get a client, then to find working torrents or software while sifting through the scams. Right now illegal file sharing is essentially an underground activity akin to buying goods off the back of a truck. Its not very convenient, and there is always the risk of getting caught or getting ripped off even you think its small. Unfettered piracy would be like going on to youtube and watching entire movies uncut anytime you wanted for free. Going on to Amazon, grabbing the newest album released by Britney Spears (admit it, you're a fan) for free. Who needs P2P file sharing?

Now who is trying to treat this as a physical property right?

You are, though you're inconsistent about it. You seem to be okay with treating copyright as a property right as long as it's on behalf of the rights holder; the purchaser who buys the good can just go suck it because they bought a license.

This asymmetry between rights of creators and consumers is exactly the problem, and your legalism doesn't change that.

You are trying to have it both ways. On one hand you are trying to say "Well the consumer bought it, its their property, so they can do whatever they want!" and on the other hand you are saying "well its not really property anyway".

Intellectual property IS property of a very special kind. That's why we have copyright laws to govern this area with limited (in time and scope) ownership rights. Consumers also have rights to "fair use" of copyrighted material, so its not an entirely one way street as you seem to indicate.

I'm not saying I agree with IP laws in their entirety, and in fact I'd welcome a debate on what changes could be made to make them work better. But I'm certainly not agreeing with you that there should be "no laws whatsoever".

I chose those works specifically because they make an argument against strong IP laws and support that argument with references. If you're too busy playing Playground Tryhard to even glance at them, then this discussion's usefulness has ended.

Its a common dishonest debating tactic to throw out a reference to material that you haven't even read yourself and expect others to read it in order to save yourself the trouble. Quote something, or don't bother posting a link.

If you are talking about reforming protection for IP, then we might agree on more than you think. But from what you've written thus far it seems like you are simply advocating digital anarchy.

Given the situation as it stands, I don't think digital anarchy is a problem. Minus people whining and stamping their feet about "common sense", all the empirical evidence shows that online file-sharing is, at the very least, no real loss, and it's very likely a net positive for smaller creators, even with the free-rider problem factored in, by boosting their visibility.

Again, you seem to want to make this about "file-sharing" and I'm talking about piracy - copyright infringement against a creators wishes. Small creators likely view file sharing as a great benefit. Which is why I don't view "file sharing" as the problem and would oppose any laws that specifically seek to stop "file sharing" as a whole.

If it comes down to a choice between entrenched industries and "digital anarchy", then I'm just as happy to see the old guard put out of business. I'm simply not willing to destroy the potential of Internet distribution nor incur legal penalties all so that I can be charged $19.99 for an ebook or $30 for a CD to guarantee that somebody's outdated business model keeps working.

In realistic terms, I'm quite happy to see massively overhauled IP laws, which actually have some respect for consumer rights and social good instead of blind adherence to profit motive.

AGAIN, who the hell is trying to destroy the potential of internet distribution? Amazon and Itunes certainly aren't. Netflicks and Hulu certainly aren't. Legal methods for online distribution are in fact growing. The only thing acting as a detterent for other companies to invest further is the fact that if they make their content readily available is the fear that they make pirating their own content easier.

As to your last point, what suggestion for overhauling IP laws would you make? This may not be the thread for it, but I'd be curious to see your suggestion for a workable model of copyright law.

[TheHammer]

Your assertion that piracy is already unfettered and that's grand, nothing should be done about it, is essentially a call for the abolishment of the entire concept of intellectual property. If intellectual property doesn't exist then the creator no longer has any right to control distribution or to claim any compensation for it.

I'm separating the moralistic "this is good and great" from the pragmatic "this is what technology enables and what is happening as a consequence", and if you're going to criticize me, you can at least have the courtesy of recognizing that.

Pointing out that P2P file sharing isn't really destroying lives or ruining incomes is not equivalent to "this is a good thing and we should encourage it and fuck you you have no rights".

Hacking your back account is also something that "technology enables". Should the governments of the world simply allow it to happen without trying to combat it? Would it be cool for someone to come in and grab a dollar or two every week? After all, its not destroying your life or ruining your income.

One of the reasons I linked the Boldrin & Levine book is because they make a compelling case that IP laws aren't even necessary for creators of anything -- patentable drugs, books, movies -- to make a profit. I find it most interesting because it's a credible challenge to the belief that IP law is essential for creators to have any rights or to receive compensation for their work. It's an interesting thought experiment and they support their case with numerous examples.

And there are of course, counter examples:
http://www.people.com/people/archive/ar ... 04,00.html

IP protects creators big and small. Without intellectual property rights, inventors and artists would be subject to the whims of corporate giants who could take the fruits of their labor, and then use it in their products or sell it with no compensation whatsoever.

Personally speaking I'm all for creators rights as long as they're balanced with consumer rights and social good. I simply don't believe, based on the balance of evidence, that 1. file sharing is a net harm, 2. that the measures taken to curb file-sharing are beneficial, useful, or worth the damage they incur. If it's a choice between shameless fear-based money-grabbing and open information, I'm going to support the latter every time. It's just that as far as I can see, there's no mutual exclusion between you making money on your work and it being more available.

If I haven't made that explicit enough, there it is.

How far are you willing to extend that notion? Its ok if you share a file with a friend, but what about 10 friends? What if those 10 friends share that same file with 10 more friends and so on. Is it still ok? If this is a brand new artist, they might be happy you did that and would encourage it. If its a full unlocked copy of Microsoft office, then Microsoft might be kind of pissed. That's why there must be a distinction between legal and illegal file sharing.

[NoXion]

Yes he probably would. But he'd have to get a lawyer and sue to assert his rights under that contract. A lot of file sharers tend to get pissed off when copyright holders do that sort of thing...

Last time I bought a CD I didn't sign a contract agreeing to pay the artist for their work. Indeed, I didn't sign any kind of legally binding contract at all. I don't get your point.

[TheHammer]

Yes he probably would. But he'd have to get a lawyer and sue to assert his rights under that contract. A lot of file sharers tend to get pissed off when copyright holders do that sort of thing...

Last time I bought a CD I didn't sign a contract agreeing to pay the artist for their work. Indeed, I didn't sign any kind of legally binding contract at all. I don't get your point.

I was referring to artists suing copyright infringers for compensation. Whether you sign anything or not, you are still bound by copyright law. When it comes to things like software there are usually additional restrictions put forth in the user license that you agree to before being able to use the software.

[Hamstray]

How far are you willing to extend that notion? Its ok if you share a file with a friend, but what about 10 friends? What if those 10 friends share that same file with 10 more friends and so on. Is it still ok? If this is a brand new artist, they might be happy you did that and would encourage it. If its a full unlocked copy of Microsoft office, then Microsoft might be kind of pissed. That's why there must be a distinction between legal and illegal file sharing.

Wish it were so, but in reality piracy of Microsoft office does Microsoft more good than harm as they just make people require upgrades. If people weren't accustomed to using Microsoft office or Windows for that matter tax dollars wouldn't get wasted to provide public administration with licenses. I've heard a rumor that recent expenditures to upgrade and training to Windows 7 cost several hundred million euros here, and that is for a city with just 1.7 million inhabitants. I guess a rather large part of the problem is Microsoft doing lobbying also.

[Vendetta]

How far are you willing to extend that notion? Its ok if you share a file with a friend, but what about 10 friends? What if those 10 friends share that same file with 10 more friends and so on. Is it still ok? If this is a brand new artist, they might be happy you did that and would encourage it. If its a full unlocked copy of Microsoft office, then Microsoft might be kind of pissed. That's why there must be a distinction between legal and illegal file sharing.

On the other hand, I expect Microsoft care more about businesses buying Office than the home user, because of that juicy "Everyone uses it so everyone needs it" market they have going on.

[TheHammer]

How far are you willing to extend that notion? Its ok if you share a file with a friend, but what about 10 friends? What if those 10 friends share that same file with 10 more friends and so on. Is it still ok? If this is a brand new artist, they might be happy you did that and would encourage it. If its a full unlocked copy of Microsoft office, then Microsoft might be kind of pissed. That's why there must be a distinction between legal and illegal file sharing.

On the other hand, I expect Microsoft care more about businesses buying Office than the home user, because of that juicy "Everyone uses it so everyone needs it" market they have going on.

Well, I suspect that's true that they care more about the business side. That's why they make the home and student versions far cheaper than the business one, so as to get it in the hands of more people. But, by that same token they aren't giving it away willingly.

How far are you willing to extend that notion? Its ok if you share a file with a friend, but what about 10 friends? What if those 10 friends share that same file with 10 more friends and so on. Is it still ok? If this is a brand new artist, they might be happy you did that and would encourage it. If its a full unlocked copy of Microsoft office, then Microsoft might be kind of pissed. That's why there must be a distinction between legal and illegal file sharing.

Wish it were so, but in reality piracy of Microsoft office does Microsoft more good than harm as they just make people require upgrades. If people weren't accustomed to using Microsoft office or Windows for that matter tax dollars wouldn't get wasted to provide public administration with licenses. I've heard a rumor that recent expenditures to upgrade and training to Windows 7 cost several hundred million euros here, and that is for a city with just 1.7 million inhabitants. I guess a rather large part of the problem is Microsoft doing lobbying also.

That doesn't make any sense. Please elaborate on how piracy of Microsoft office does Microsoft more good than harm? On your second point, I hesitate to address rumors as if they were fact, but if it had been several years since they last upgraded, that probably would include hardware replacement as well as software upgrades.

[Xon]

Well, I suspect that's true that they care more about the business side. That's why they make the home and student versions far cheaper than the business one, so as to get it in the hands of more people. But, by that same token they aren't giving it away willingly.

Microsoft will give away many thousands of dollars at retail costs of software to any student who asks*. Microsoft's various educational/promotional events often give away several thousands of dollars worth of free software to attendance, and those events can run into the thousands of people attending over several days.

*dreamspark(free stuff), It's not cheating(cheap stuff) and MSDNAA(this is about <$4 per year per student for the educational institution ).

If you are a student and paying full retail price for Microsoft software which isn't a game, you are likely doing it wrong.

That doesn't make any sense. Please elaborate on how piracy of Microsoft office does Microsoft more good than harm? On your second point, I hesitate to address rumors as if they were fact, but if it had been several years since they last upgraded, that probably would include hardware replacement as well as software upgrades.

Training is really expensive. If someone pirates some software and learns to use it on thier own time, they relieve the need to be trained by a company at that's company's own expense. This creates a pool of pre-trained hires who already know how to use various productivity apps.

If you can't figure out why it is an economic advantage to hire someone who already knows how to use key productivity apps (ie Windows) compared to hiring someone who you need send on a 4 week course on how to use a mouse this thread isn't for you.

[Xon]

Actually, what really cranked my handle was Xon's ““No, that money was not yours and, in all likelihood, never had a chance to be yours either.” despite the fact that at the time I was already a published author writing for pay. Really, no one has slapped him down for that? Back in post 53 if I'm counting right.

I'm baffled at why the hell you thought actual theft and fraud was somehow relevent to p2p file copying which the thread was talking about for the entire time till you injected a completely off-topic argument about a transcript being stolen and sold under false pretense which you didn't even describe properly till after.

And ThomasP is doing his damnedest to argue copyright as we know it shouldn't exist at all in the digital age.

And? Copyright as the laws are written doesn't function in a digital enviroment. It is technologically imposible to enforce copyright laws written for non-trivial-cost copying where physical materials had to be moved around in an enviroment when anyone can make a digital copy trivially. Yes, you can use DRM to restrict access but DRM is utterly fundementally flawed in that to consume the product the producer need to let the end-user decrypt it, and thus if it's posible to decrypt it and the end-user has it in thier hands it's just a matter of time for someone to rip it.

You either keep a significant chunk on a remote server which the end user can't access but only get the results of (ie phone home software, client-server apps), or social ones which (ie multiplayer). For business, it is that support requires legit licenes or no one will touch it.

Removal of IP protections would also remove the threat of punishment, and the threat of stigma associated with getting caught. Essentially, with IP protections the "Harm" is limited because the scope of infringement is limited. I don't have numbers for "how bad things would be" if IP laws were not enforced at all since I don't have a magical crystal ball to view this hypothetical scenario.

New Zealand recently introduced some of the harshest anti-p2p laws recently and this is what the telco's say;

TelstraClear spokesman Gary Bowering said it saw international traffic decline about the time the controversial regime came into force but it couldn't say for certain if the two events were related. "In broad terms, the recent change is noticeable but not major."

Telecom spokeswoman Anna Skerten said it had seen no discernable impact. While there had been "a few dips", these were within the bounds of normal fluctuations in traffic, she said.

Copyright violation is so utterly trivial to perform, so utterly impersonal, that it's very hard for the human mind to realise it has any meaningful consequences.

[Broomstick]

Actually, what really cranked my handle was Xon's ““No, that money was not yours and, in all likelihood, never had a chance to be yours either.” despite the fact that at the time I was already a published author writing for pay. Really, no one has slapped him down for that? Back in post 53 if I'm counting right.

I'm baffled at why the hell you thought actual theft and fraud was somehow relevent to p2p file copying which the thread was talking about for the entire time till you injected a completely off-topic argument about a transcript being stolen and sold under false pretense which you didn't even describe properly till after.

There's a really basic concept that people should be paid for the work they do. Good writing is work.

And what's this about a "transcript"? It wasn't a "transcript", do you even know the meaning of that word?

It's quite insulting the way you trivialize what I do.

Yes, you can use DRM to restrict access but DRM is utterly fundementally flawed in that to consume the product the producer need to let the end-user decrypt it, and thus if it's posible to decrypt it and the end-user has it in thier hands it's just a matter of time for someone to rip it.

You might as well argue that tree-books are fundamentally flawed because you only need a photocopier to duplicate them.

You might as well argue that locks on doors are pointless because you can pick them, or just kick the door in.

Copyright violation is so utterly trivial to perform, so utterly impersonal, that it's very hard for the human mind to realise it has any meaningful consequences.

Are you saying that because it's easy it should be legal? It's trival to pull money out of the till if you work at a cash register, that doesn't make it legal.

[Broomstick]

That doesn't make any sense. Please elaborate on how piracy of Microsoft office does Microsoft more good than harm? On your second point, I hesitate to address rumors as if they were fact, but if it had been several years since they last upgraded, that probably would include hardware replacement as well as software upgrades.

Training is really expensive. If someone pirates some software and learns to use it on thier own time, they relieve the need to be trained by a company at that's company's own expense. This creates a pool of pre-trained hires who already know how to use various productivity apps.

If you can't figure out why it is an economic advantage to hire someone who already knows how to use key productivity apps (ie Windows) compared to hiring someone who you need send on a 4 week course on how to use a mouse this thread isn't for you.

Xon, have you ever applied for a job that requires use of Microsoft products?

It doesn't matter how whiz-bang great you are having learned on your own - a prospective employer will want PROOF that you know what the hell you're talking about. More and more, that means having a certificate stating you completed a "proper" training program, yes, one that charges thousands of dollars for the privilege.

Given the corporate regulations of many large companies, admitting you taught yourself on pirated software likely means you won't get the job, because you'll be seen as a risk.

Of course, you can whine that's all part of some conspiracy on the part of big business and those evil IP holders to enforce copyright and oppress the rugged individualist still living in mom's basement, but that's the real world for you. Companies don't want hackers and pirates, they want people who will follow the rules.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

I don't believe I saw anyone link to this so I figured I would share it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njuo1puB ... ture=share

Since completing his earlier major record label contract, musician Trent Reznor has been experimenting with a variety of new and unique business models for his band, Nine Inch Nails, to reach and connect with fans. This case study explores Reznor's experiments, examining what has worked and what has not - and why.

- Speaker: Michael Masnick (Editor/President & CEO, Techdirt Blog/Floor64)

[Xon]

There's a really basic concept that people should be paid for the work they do. Good writing is work.

Sure, this is a great concept when applied to a scarce resource. Bit patterns once produced are the closed thing to a post-scarcity resource in existance.

Getting payed every time something is duplicated for when something can be duplicated an unlimited times for zero-cost is just really dumb.

It's quite insulting the way you trivialize what I do.

Well if it was something relevent to digital copyright infringement.

You might as well argue that locks on doors are pointless because you can pick them, or just kick the door in.

And I thought car analogies where bad. And yes, locks on doors which can not be closed are completely pointless!

Are you saying that because it's easy it should be legal?

Creating laws which don't recognise human cognative limitations, especially when trying to govern human behaviour, is deeply stupid.

It's trival to pull money out of the till if you work at a cash register, that doesn't make it legal.

Money is a finite resource (unless you are a bank or a government which can simply issue more, at least to a point). Making digital copies is very different.

Xon, have you ever applied for a job that requires use of Microsoft products?

Yes. Only my current job I was hired which occured before I had even graduated from my bachelor of science degree.

It doesn't matter how whiz-bang great you are having learned on your own - a prospective employer will want PROOF that you know what the hell you're talking about.

You are talking about certification not learning.

One is the process in which knowledge of the subject is aquired. The other is a rubberstamp proclaiming to the world who recognise the issuer that you might actually know the stuff.

More and more, that means having a certificate stating you completed a "proper" training program, yes, one that charges thousands of dollars for the privilege.

Degree/Qualification/Academic inflation isn't the subject of this thread, but feel free to create a new thread to talk about it.

[TimothyC]

There's a really basic concept that people should be paid for the work they do. Good writing is work.

Sure, this is a great concept when applied to a scarce resource. Bit patterns once produced are the closed thing to a post-scarcity resource in existence.

Getting payed every time something is duplicated for when something can be duplicated an unlimited times for zero-cost is just really dumb.

Ok! This I have a problem with, because I have personal experience with content creation where costs per copy are used to offset fixed costs.

While school photography was still done on film for the most part (or was in '07 when that was my job), it was moving to digital. How much would you then cost for the first copy of the image?

Looking at costs, the photographer's time is cheap - total costs per person were in the $20 an hour range. Equipment (totally about $10k would need to be replaced once every three to four years, but would only be used for 20 weeks a year at most. Each week would consist of 30 hours (at most!) of shooting. So Equipment costs are about $5 per hour. If you assume backend costs of of say $15 per hour (a fair number having worked in the industry), that puts costs in the $40 per hour range. Now in an hour I could shoot a good 45 kids (average - there were times I couldn't get half that number in because the kindergarteners in south-central Ohio were scared of the funny looking guy behind the camera, and I had to give their teacher a crash course in how to use the camera [with boss approval] to get the pictures, and there were times when I got nearly 70 an hour at private schools). On average I would get about ⅓ of families to buy pictures, but 75% of schools would want the pictures for some use. So let us say that 85% of the kids were generating a profit. I have to use those numbers as a base (because you can't count on everyone buying pictures all of the time), the photographer would have to charge everyone who buys a picture $1.05 to break even.

That doesn't sound like much, but that's the bare bones cost. Get a higher quality photographer and profit and the costs go up. I could easily justify cost of a $1.60 per kid. Note that this is just the cost of the photograph. If you want it touched up (and trust me, the average home user can't do the quality of touch-ups that a professional can), you're now looking at $3.00.

"That's still cheap!" you say. It isn't. Now we get to group shots. No one buys group shots outside of sports, so the only buyers are schools. Good group shots take two to three photographers (one with the camera, two working support). Personnel costs are now $60 per hour. Shot rate is down to only one shot every 3-4 minutes so cost are up to $5.33 a shot. Photographers would have to charge the school that if they wanted to use the images for a yearbook.

Now we get to the kicker - Total costs:

A school of a thousand students and teachers (about what I would shoot), that had 20 groups (average number from memory), and the photos being used on school ID cards (about $.10 per card printed). The cost to the school would now be $1800. I'm going to have to go back on a later day to get the retakes, (one photographer would go back, and often only shoot for a couple of hours with a handful of students), and that's going to cost another $100.

Total cost to the school is $1900 (ish), and we haven't even printed anything up but the ID cards. Sure now the families can get prints for cheap ( $3 for an 8x10* ), but the school has to fork over a lot of money up front.

If instead the buy the prints model is used, and $10 is charged for an 8x10*, I can use the ⅓ that do buy pictures to subsidize the other ⅔, of the population (in our analysis above, the 670 who wouldn't be buying), and still make a nice tidy profit (which is something I didn't make when the school pays for the photo day).

* I used the 8x10, as it is a single sheet - it makes a good reference for other single sheet options like two 5x7s or 16 wallets.

[Xon]

Ok! This I have a problem with, because I have personal experience with content creation where costs per copy are used to offset fixed costs.

Don't get me wrong, it makes a lot of sense to charge per copy when you are dealling with the physical medium. But your example really isn't about a product copied an amazing number of times for effectively free, but amortizing the costs of a group of individual produced content where some of the content is sold at much higher costs than the rest which largely exist to draw a crowd.

While school photography was still done on film for the most part (or was in '07 when that was my job), it was moving to digital. How much would you then cost for the first copy of the image?

At the same time, do you think you could sell to a school they needed to pay you money for every photo ever printed forever regardless of medium?

For ID cards my uni, back in 2002 or so, had a digital camera mated to a card printer. It was a 5 minute job of the same uni employee processing general enquires to make the student stand infront of the camera snap 1 or 2 photos and picking the least horrible one and then print it to the card. The photographer business based off campus should show up for big events like graduation and similar where there was going to be plenty of demand for it, because as you observed things like ID cards really aren't going to make much profit and is more to provide a crowd to be tempted in making higher profitability purchases.

If instead the buy the prints model is used

Honestly, anyone just buying prints of photos and not the copyright is being really stupid if they actually plan to keep it or use it beyond a purely private setting. Reading wipo on photography probably means it would be a copyright violation to make a digital copy of already owned prints, and depending on the exact laws in the host country probably against the law even in a private setting.

[Broomstick]

There's a really basic concept that people should be paid for the work they do. Good writing is work.

Sure, this is a great concept when applied to a scarce resource. Bit patterns once produced are the closed thing to a post-scarcity resource in existance.

Getting payed every time something is duplicated for when something can be duplicated an unlimited times for zero-cost is just really dumb.

You're not paying for the pixels you dimwit, you're compensating the creator for the work that went into creating the original. YOU'RE claiming that since copy costs are "free" it's OK to take the creators work and pass it around and give nothing back to the person who created it... in which case, why should they bother?

Maybe professional singers shouldn't be paid for live performances because, you know, the air that transmits the sound is free.

Creative works ARE a scare resource, original ideas ARE a scare resource - how do you intend to ensure creators receive compensation for their efforts in this new society you imagine? Or do you expect those people to work for free?

It's quite insulting the way you trivialize what I do.

Well if it was something relevent to digital copyright infringement.

Relevant or not, you have continually trivialized my work - calling it "fanfiction" and mocking it. Of course, you belittling it and making it appear worthless you find it easier to justify your theft of my efforts. Rather like a shoplifter who, when caught rationalizes their deed with "But it was only a 50 cent stick of gum!" as if stealing a cheap item somehow makes it less theft.

Really, you could not make it more clearly that you simply do not value to work creators put into their worth, whether it's writing, painting, acting, film-making, design of any sort.... You clearly see no value in any of that.

Are you saying that because it's easy it should be legal?

Creating laws which don't recognise human cognative limitations, especially when trying to govern human behaviour, is deeply stupid.

It's easy to shop lift. Funny, though, nowhere is that legal.

Xon, have you ever applied for a job that requires use of Microsoft products?

Yes. Only my current job I was hired which occured before I had even graduated from my bachelor of science degree.

Ah - so you were hired before you were fully trained. Now that you're out in the real world, though, things will be different for the next job.

It doesn't matter how whiz-bang great you are having learned on your own - a prospective employer will want PROOF that you know what the hell you're talking about.

You are talking about certification not learning.

One is the process in which knowledge of the subject is aquired. The other is a rubberstamp proclaiming to the world who recognise the issuer that you might actually know the stuff.

The difference is, in the corporate world self-teaching has no value and you will almost never be compensated for it. The assumption is that self-teaching is never as good as a formal training program. Hence, the requirement for formal certification in so many areas.

Your self-taught knowledge is worthless if no one will acknowledge that it even exists, much less has any value.

More and more, that means having a certificate stating you completed a "proper" training program, yes, one that charges thousands of dollars for the privilege.

Degree/Qualification/Academic inflation isn't the subject of this thread, but feel free to create a new thread to talk about it.

Wasn't my point and you know it, you thieving piece of shit.

[Broomstick]

Ok, as I said I've would I look at the links Thanas posted. The first is this one: Internet piracy increases sale of anime DVDs, which claims online piracy increases anime DVD sales.
First, it's not a link to the actual study, but to articles about that study. You can click through multiple links to an abstract of the study, but the study itself is apparently offered only in Japanese so I can't directly read it.

The TorrentFreak article does point out that “Some researchers claim a considerable loss due to unauthorized sharing, while others have found that the overall effect of piracy is a positive one.” so apparently the question is by no means definitively settled, even for a site presumably much in favor of file-sharing.

While DVD sales were not negatively impacted DVD rentals were according to TorrentFreak. I'm not sure what, exactly, that means for the future. DVD (and before that, video) rentals are legitimate businesses and this takes away their revenue. Well, sometimes businesses become obsolete but pardon me if I don't view that with glee. Even change for the better can cause turmoil and have negative consequences for some. To top it off, further link-clicking takes you to a page where it claims the study does not show negative impact on DVD rentals but that it can not be determined either way if rentals are harmed or helped or neutrally impacted by file-sharing. Which in turn shows that you have to read everything with a grain of salt, and absent an English translation of the full study I'm sort of stuck on not being sure on that point.

I'm not a big animie person, so I'm unclear on the precise nature of the business. It could be YouTube is acting as a form of advertising for a product that otherwise has very little advertising or support outside of its original broadcast. In which case you could argue the animie copyright holders are actually profiting off the unpaid efforts of the YouTube animie enthusiasts. I'm not too warm and fuzzy about that, although if the YouTube Dudes are going into this knowing there's no profit, hey, their choice. Still, it's skeevy if a corporation profits off the efforts of others without giving them something, much less taking a crap on their heads.

Similar effects have been observed for music piracy and book piracy as well.”

TorrentFreak does have links to what they refer to. The music piracy one says 75% of artists benefit from piracy, but the top 25% of artists do not. The top 25% actually seem to LOSE sales due to piracy. And this gets to my earlier point that while it might work for some people that does not mean it works for everyone. Why should the top quarter of music artists be forced to put up with piracy that hurts their sales and profits for the benefit of the bottom 3/4's? Or why should the bottom 3/4's be barred from using file-sharing just because it doesn't work for the top 3/4? But really, why should a quarter of any industry have to submit to rules that cause them fiscal harm?

In any case, the link to music file-sharing shows that even if file-sharing is beneficial in some cases it is not automatically beneficial to everyone.

The link to book piracy was more a couple of anecdotes from authors who saw a spike in sales after file sharing occurred. Of course, we all know that anecdote is not evidence. Are these isolated examples or not? Has anyone made a study of MANY authors? Are they top selling authors or so-called “B-list”? Is this like the music situation where for the bottom 75% file-sharing is good but for the top 25% it can have a negative impact? Nowhere are those questions explored.

See, the thing is, the big publishing houses have always geared most of their advertising towards the top artists/writers in the stable. A common complaint of new and less known groups is that their publisher doesn't promote them. Sure, if no one ever hears of you, you won't make sales. It could be the publishers have been missing out on past sales due to failure to promote their talent – in which case yes, it's the publishers' fault. In which case how talent is promoted needs a revision.

Does that mean that file-sharing is the ideal way to promote lesser known creators? No – it just says it's better than what we had before. If such lesser creators benefit sufficiently so as to reach the top echelons they might well go from being people file-sharing benefits to being people file-sharing harms. Or maybe that only applies to some areas and not all.

One point of critique based on the main conclusions of the study, is that the observed relation only appears to be correlational. This may mean that the results could in part be influenced by significant third variables such as promotion and overall popularity. Since the report is only available in Japanese we were unable to confirm whether this was taken into account.

And this is an important point – as I said, if something isn't promoted then file-sharing that exposes it to a wider audience certainly could result in increased interest and sales. On the other hand, this may not apply to widely advertised/promoted works.

And finally....

The challenge for the content producers is to find the sweet spot that will benefit them, and consumers.

Which is really what I'd like see – a situation that maximally benefits the maximum number of people, that's BOTH consumers and creators.

Due to time constraints I have not yet had the time to thoroughly read and digest the other links, but I will as time permits.

[TheHammer]

Well, I suspect that's true that they care more about the business side. That's why they make the home and student versions far cheaper than the business one, so as to get it in the hands of more people. But, by that same token they aren't giving it away willingly.

Microsoft will give away many thousands of dollars at retail costs of software to any student who asks*. Microsoft's various educational/promotional events often give away several thousands of dollars worth of free software to attendance, and those events can run into the thousands of people attending over several days.

And your point is... what exactly? Give aways and donations can generally be written off for tax purposes as well as build goodwill and good old fashioned marketing. Quite frankly, I don't see the relevence because Microsoft giving software away isn't the issue. The issue is pirates cracking copy protection and distributing software that Microsoft DOES NOT want to give away for free.

*dreamspark(free stuff), It's not cheating(cheap stuff) and MSDNAA(this is about <$4 per year per student for the educational institution ).

If you are a student and paying full retail price for Microsoft software which isn't a game, you are likely doing it wrong.

I already noted earlier that "student" editions of Microsoft software can be gotten relatively cheaply.

That doesn't make any sense. Please elaborate on how piracy of Microsoft office does Microsoft more good than harm? On your second point, I hesitate to address rumors as if they were fact, but if it had been several years since they last upgraded, that probably would include hardware replacement as well as software upgrades.

Training is really expensive. If someone pirates some software and learns to use it on thier own time, they relieve the need to be trained by a company at that's company's own expense. This creates a pool of pre-trained hires who already know how to use various productivity apps.

But as you already noted, Microsoft already makes its software available to students at reasonable prices. Even if I were to accept your statement at face value, it may benefit the pirate or the company the pirate applies to, but I still fail to see how piracy benefits Microsoft.

If you can't figure out why it is an economic advantage to hire someone who already knows how to use key productivity apps (ie Windows) compared to hiring someone who you need send on a 4 week course on how to use a mouse this thread isn't for you.

So hiring people who are trained is more economically advantageous than hiring one who needs weeks of training? No shit sherlock. That's not the point. Basic word processing isn't exactly rocket science. Anything more advanced than that would likely require more legitimate means such as education, or previous job experience much more so than "tinkering" at home. Besides, all of this is a red herring because you have not demonstrated in the slightest how piracy benefits Microsoft.

[TheHammer]

.

Removal of IP protections would also remove the threat of punishment, and the threat of stigma associated with getting caught. Essentially, with IP protections the "Harm" is limited because the scope of infringement is limited. I don't have numbers for "how bad things would be" if IP laws were not enforced at all since I don't have a magical crystal ball to view this hypothetical scenario.

New Zealand recently introduced some of the harshest anti-p2p laws recently and this is what the telco's say;

TelstraClear spokesman Gary Bowering said it saw international traffic decline about the time the controversial regime came into force but it couldn't say for certain if the two events were related. "In broad terms, the recent change is noticeable but not major."

Telecom spokeswoman Anna Skerten said it had seen no discernable impact. While there had been "a few dips", these were within the bounds of normal fluctuations in traffic, she said.

Copyright violation is so utterly trivial to perform, so utterly impersonal, that it's very hard for the human mind to realise it has any meaningful consequences.

I don't see the relevence... The point was what would happen if IP protections were removed, not if they were made more harsh. Besides all that, you wouldn't immediately see an impact until people start getting prosecuted under the new law. Until someone goes to jail or gets severe fines, pirates will think they can flaunt these rules just like in the past.

[salm]

So hiring people who are trained is more economically advantageous than hiring one who needs weeks of training? No shit sherlock. That's not the point. Basic word processing isn't exactly rocket science. Anything more advanced than that would likely require more legitimate means such as education, or previous job experience much more so than "tinkering" at home. Besides, all of this is a red herring because you have not demonstrated in the slightest how piracy benefits Microsoft.

Eh, i frequently meet autodidacts in my area of work and the programs we use are among the most complex ones out there (3D animation). It´s possible and it´s done by a fair share of people. If you "tinker" enough at home you don´t need formal education and can still be able to break into the industry.
The same goes for other graphical programs or software used in the music industry.
I highly doubt that the vast majority of DJs who do spectacular things with Cubase or whatever it is they use have some kind of formal education.

I don´t think i´ve been asked to prove that I have a formal education in my line of work in a single job interview. One of my current co workers is a trained salesman but he "tinkered" at home and is now working as the lead artist.

There are certain areas which I´m sure require some sort of formal education but a blanket statement that it´s like that everywhere is more than false.

[Xon]

And your point is... what exactly? Give aways and donations can generally be written off for tax purposes as well as build goodwill and good old fashioned marketing. Quite frankly, I don't see the relevence because Microsoft giving software away isn't the issue. The issue is pirates cracking copy protection and distributing software that Microsoft DOES NOT want to give away for free.

Of all the publically purchasable IP, the only thing Microsoft doesn't give away wholesale are thier games and it's only the games which have copy protection of any real extent. ie to prevent copying of the media. Microsoft's Product Activation does not care how you get the bits for the software, just that you have a licence key to use it and event then Microsoft's equivelent of site licences for various products are still practically given away.

So hiring people who are trained is more economically advantageous than hiring one who needs weeks of training? No shit sherlock. That's not the point. Basic word processing isn't exactly rocket science. Anything more advanced than that would likely require more legitimate means such as education, or previous job experience much more so than "tinkering" at home. Besides, all of this is a red herring because you have not demonstrated in the slightest how piracy benefits Microsoft.

The double think is amazing. On one hand you support that giving away free copies is a great educational tool, and then double back and say you can't see how piracy (ie getting it for free) can't function as the same. Then a completely unfounded claim that it "requires" formal education, it is quite common in the IT industry to learn the stuff outside of business hours and then take a Microsoft cert exam to get the rubberstamp.

I don't see the relevence... The point was what would happen if IP protections were removed, not if they were made more harsh. Besides all that, you wouldn't immediately see an impact until people start getting prosecuted under the new law.

It's relevent as it shows that harsh measures aren't going to work at reducing copyright infringement, that copy infringement levels are not a direct correlation with the laws and it's enforcement. And it's been almost a month since the bill came into force, The bill in question has yet to hit offenders

Internet users are yet to feel the full sting of the Government's anti-piracy "Skynet" law, with only a few unconfirmed reports of pirates being pinged by copyright holders.

A <10% reduction in bittorrent traffic is utterly trivial, and well within seasonal variance. So why isn't this law raking in offenders?

Until someone goes to jail or gets severe fines, pirates will think they can flaunt these rules just like in the past.

Prove it.

[Xon]

You're not paying for the pixels you dimwit, you're compensating the creator for the work that went into creating the original. YOU'RE claiming that since copy costs are "free" it's OK to take the creators work and pass it around and give nothing back to the person who created it... in which case, why should they bother?

Not everyone subscribes to the classical 'Labor theory of value' as being valid. Digital copies are the closest thing to the economic concept of perfect competition. The original producer is rather irrelevant at setting the market price in such an enviroment. It's the entire reason copyright laws don't really work well with digital copying. Why companies invest in DRM to slow down copying of the original roduct because copyright laws do not work at protecting thier potential to earn revenue beyond the ability to recover first-copy costs for copying and distribution.

Maybe professional singers shouldn't be paid for live performances because, you know, the air that transmits the sound is free.

Keep strawmanning. But lets ignore the fact that a professional singer will potentially have to pay a boatload fees to sing anything written in the last 88 years if there wasn't wrangling to get premisions to use a copyrighted song or had someone 'on staff' to write it for them. And lets ignore that an actual performance is inherently different from p2p file copying that I'm just boggling that you even brought that up.

Creative works ARE a scare resource, original ideas ARE a scare resource

The creation of creative works is a scare resource, the ability to copy them is not. "orignal ideas" sure as hell are not scare(or most of the time original), and besides the abomination that is software patents, you sell an implementation of an idea not the idea.

how do you intend to ensure creators receive compensation for their efforts in this new society you imagine? Or do you expect those people to work for free?

Commision always work if you want to be guaranteed to be paid, and after that it's no longer the original creators so why should they care? As for getting paid for the work in-perpetuity, why the hell do they deserve that?

Even now, there is no promise that creating something will mean you receive compensation for those efforts. In Australia back in the 90s there were companies laying fibre everywhere, a physically demanding and expensive task. The major incumbents and banks just drove them out of business* and bought the assets for a fraction of the orignal cost.

*These's company's business model appeared to be "lay fiber, now what?".

Relevant or not, you have continually trivialized my work - calling it "fanfiction" and mocking it. Of course, you belittling it and making it appear worthless you find it easier to justify your theft of my efforts. Rather like a shoplifter who, when caught rationalizes their deed with "But it was only a 50 cent stick of gum!" as if stealing a cheap item somehow makes it less theft.

Keep strawmanning, copyright infringement is not theft.

Really, you could not make it more clearly that you simply do not value to work creators put into their worth, whether it's writing, painting, acting, film-making, design of any sort.... You clearly see no value in any of that.

I see that there is value in creating something. Paying for someone to create it once and then copy it at no cost to them but a cost to everyone else for the rest of existance I do not. But hey, keep strawmanning.

It's easy to shop lift. Funny, though, nowhere is that legal.

Keep strawmanning.

Ah - so you were hired before you were fully trained. Now that you're out in the real world, though, things will be different for the next job.

Yes, now my degree is completely worthless because it's horrifically out of date and I have experiance and networking in the industry and can easily get past the stupid HR checklist requirements.

The difference is, in the corporate world self-teaching has no value and you will almost never be compensated for it. The assumption is that self-teaching is never as good as a formal training program. Hence, the requirement for formal certification in so many areas.

Lovely overly broad claim. In the IT industry, self-learning is desirable and expected.

Wasn't my point and you know it,

Oh, it was your point. You conflated learning with certification while ignoring that qualification inflation is a very real phenomena. You ignored that companies really do not want to pay to train people, and will vastly prefer to hired people already trained. They don't give a shit as long as the cert itself is legitimate.

you thieving piece of shit.

And now comes the personal attacks falsely claiming I've commited a specific crime!

[TheHammer]

And your point is... what exactly? Give aways and donations can generally be written off for tax purposes as well as build goodwill and good old fashioned marketing. Quite frankly, I don't see the relevence because Microsoft giving software away isn't the issue. The issue is pirates cracking copy protection and distributing software that Microsoft DOES NOT want to give away for free.

Of all the publically purchasable IP, the only thing Microsoft doesn't give away wholesale are thier games and it's only the games which have copy protection of any real extent. ie to prevent copying of the media. Microsoft's Product Activation does not care how you get the bits for the software, just that you have a licence key to use it and event then Microsoft's equivelent of site licences for various products are still practically given away.

Again, the issue isn't what Microsoft chooses to give away for free, rather it is what they DO NOT choose to give away for free. If you need it to be "cracked" to get a fully functional copy, then Microsoft has a problem with you having it.

So hiring people who are trained is more economically advantageous than hiring one who needs weeks of training? No shit sherlock. That's not the point. Basic word processing isn't exactly rocket science. Anything more advanced than that would likely require more legitimate means such as education, or previous job experience much more so than "tinkering" at home. Besides, all of this is a red herring because you have not demonstrated in the slightest how piracy benefits Microsoft.

The double think is amazing. On one hand you support that giving away free copies is a great educational tool, and then double back and say you can't see how piracy (ie getting it for free) can't function as the same.

There is no doublethink. Most of the "the educational tools" Microsoft gives away (such as Express versions of its software) are limited in function compared to the professional versions that tend to be the ones pirated.

Then a completely unfounded claim that it "requires" formal education, it is quite common in the IT industry to learn the stuff outside of business hours and then take a Microsoft cert exam to get the rubberstamp.

I know. I work in the IT industry. It's not IT professionals we are talking about. You specifically mentioned "people who need training to use a mouse". While you were obviously using hyperbole, you clearly weren't talking about IT professionals - who by the way, as you noted, have access to training materials that Microsoft does give away for free. And one of the first things any legitimate IT professional will learn is that you don't pirate software.

I don't see the relevence... The point was what would happen if IP protections were removed, not if they were made more harsh. Besides all that, you wouldn't immediately see an impact until people start getting prosecuted under the new law.

It's relevent as it shows that harsh measures aren't going to work at reducing copyright infringement, that copy infringement levels are not a direct correlation with the laws and it's enforcement. And it's been almost a month since the bill came into force, The bill in question has yet to hit offenders

Internet users are yet to feel the full sting of the Government's anti-piracy "Skynet" law, with only a few unconfirmed reports of pirates being pinged by copyright holders.

A <10% reduction in bittorrent traffic is utterly trivial, and well within seasonal variance. So why isn't this law raking in offenders?

Until someone goes to jail or gets severe fines, pirates will think they can flaunt these rules just like in the past.

Prove it.

What is there to prove? As you noted above, internet users have "yet to feel the full sting". No matter how strong you make laws there will always be a segment of the population who thinks they won't get caught. Until you make it plainly clear that you can and are willing to go after pirates they will continue to act with impunity.

[Xon]

There is no doublethink. Most of the "the educational tools" Microsoft gives away (such as Express versions of its software) are limited in function compared to the professional versions that tend to be the ones pirated.

I'm not sure how you think Visual Studio 2010 Professional Edition or Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard Edition are "limited in function" compared to their retail version (they are infact the same damn thing). The only licensing limitation are;

You must use the tools and software you download from DreamSpark in pursuit of increasing your education, skills, and knowledge in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or design

. The MSDNAA program has even less limitations, ie not in a production comercial enviroment and offers a lot more.

What is there to prove? As you noted above, internet users have "yet to feel the full sting".

The law is fully in effect, a <10% reduction in bittorrent traffic is utterly trivial, and well within seasonal variance. The entire process is streamlined to allow content producers to nail infringing users as fast as posible. So why isn't this law raking in offenders?

No matter how strong you make laws there will always be a segment of the population who thinks they won't get caught. Until you make it plainly clear that you can and are willing to go after pirates they will continue to act with impunity.

China executes thousands per year and is quite willing to go after company heads who aid the illegal behaviour that results in deaths and very visible embarrassment to China and it doesn't stop the stuff from happening. What makes you think some random fines which at best only hit a few tens of thousands out of hundreds of millions for an act which has literially no direct physical impact on anyone but person participating in the copyrigth infringement.

This isn't about "fairness", but simple statistics show that the laws are utterly unenforcable and economic of how digital copying work means it's tilting at windmills.

[TheHammer]

There is no doublethink. Most of the "the educational tools" Microsoft gives away (such as Express versions of its software) are limited in function compared to the professional versions that tend to be the ones pirated.

I'm not sure how you think Visual Studio 2010 Professional Edition or Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard Edition are "limited in function" compared to their retail version (they are infact the same damn thing). The only licensing limitation are;

You must use the tools and software you download from DreamSpark in pursuit of increasing your education, skills, and knowledge in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or design

. The MSDNAA program has even less limitations, ie not in a production comercial enviroment and offers a lot more.

You really aren't helping your cause by pointing out how Microsoft makes available some of its software for educational purposes. The fact that you can legitimately get some software for free makes software pirates look even worse. And for the umpteenth time, its piracy we're talking about.

You will of course note that Microsoft Office is NOT one of the give-aways on that site, which was the original example I cited. Further everyone of those products is limited in function (express editions), or by license or both.

What is there to prove? As you noted above, internet users have "yet to feel the full sting".

The law is fully in effect, a <10% reduction in bittorrent traffic is utterly trivial, and well within seasonal variance. The entire process is streamlined to allow content producers to nail infringing users as fast as posible. So why isn't this law raking in offenders?

Maybe its not as streamlined as you think? Just because the law is in effect doesn't mean that methods for enforcement have been refined, or in some cases even invented yet. And its always going to be a cat and mouse game between offenders and enforcers. That's the nature of the beast.

No matter how strong you make laws there will always be a segment of the population who thinks they won't get caught. Until you make it plainly clear that you can and are willing to go after pirates they will continue to act with impunity.

China executes thousands per year and is quite willing to go after company heads who aid the illegal behaviour that results in deaths and very visible embarrassment to China and it doesn't stop the stuff from happening. What makes you think some random fines which at best only hit a few tens of thousands out of hundreds of millions for an act which has literially no direct physical impact on anyone but person participating in the copyrigth infringement.

You are joking right? Please post links to incidents of executions in China for "copyright infringement". In fact, China is among the worst at enforcing copyright protections. But actually it does serve as an indicator for how bad things would be if Copyright protections did not exist. Current estimates are that 90-95 % of Music and movies in China are unauthorized (pirated) copies.

http://www.slate.com/id/2233156/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_copy ... c_of_China

IF you took that global, then you would see a major hurtful impact to content producers.

This isn't about "fairness", but simple statistics show that the laws are utterly unenforcable and economic of how digital copying work means it's tilting at windmills.

The laws are enforceable. Just because it is more difficult to enforce than other sorts of crimes doesn't mean its impossible. While your average peer to peer file sharer might never get caught, the big boys doing massive file sharing and causing the most harm certainly can and are caught.