Broadband Consumers to foot bill to fight Piracy

[adam_grif]

Browsing links from Arstechnica reminded me about how ridiculous the claims of billions of dollars in lost revenue are. Considering most people are already spending close to the maximum amount that they can, the idea that if piracy didn't exist that suddenly 6.1 billion dollars in revenue would magically appear out of nowhere is laughable, unless they're expecting everybody to stop buying food in order to cough up for their movie watching habits.

[Axis Kast]

You've already been Dogpiled, but seriously man. You damned well know this example is fucking bullshit.

What is bullshit? In legal parlance, copyright violation may not be equivalent to shoplifting. Both, however, involve the taking and benefiting from something which is not legally one's own. That is wrong.

The focus of just about every response in this thread has been on the greed of those calling for harsh punishment. Fine. However, just because the proverbial shopkeeper calls for the sneakthief's execution, and we condemn him for being blind and bloodthirsty, doesn't mean that stealing something, be it tangible or intangible property, is acceptable behavior.

People steal music because it is easy. They can steal items they wouldn't think to buy, because there is easy opportunity, but also those which they would otherwise buy, also because there is easy opportunity. Either way, it's wrong.

[Alyeska]

What is bullshit? In legal parlance, copyright violation may not be equivalent to shoplifting. Both, however, involve the taking and benefiting from something which is not legally one's own. That is wrong.

Legal parlance? In real fucking practice. When you violate a copyright, you haven't physicaly deprived them of anything and they are still free to sell. More to the point, a large part of the claimed piracy are people copying their own fucking music and movies to other formats. You rip your own DVD to your PC? Copyright Violation! It doesn't matter what the actual legality is, the industry openly admits that this is what they count as part of copyright violations. Those figures provided by the industry which are the basis for the laws being created are a LIE.

The focus of just about every response in this thread has been on the greed of those calling for harsh punishment. Fine. However, just because the proverbial shopkeeper calls for the sneakthief's execution, and we condemn him for being blind and bloodthirsty, doesn't mean that stealing something, be it tangible or intangible property, is acceptable behavior.

People steal music because it is easy. They can steal items they wouldn't think to buy, because there is easy opportunity, but also those which they would otherwise buy, also because there is easy opportunity. Either way, it's wrong.

How about the shopkeeper calling for the death of someone who split his loaf of bread in two and shared it with someone else?

[adam_grif]

In that respect it's more like buying potatoes from a store then using it to plant your own.

[Mr Bean]

I'm telling you Alyeska your wasting your time with Axis Kast on this issue, he does not understand. That's why he always uses a theft example instead of a copy example. He can not grasp the fact that violating copyright is not theft, can't be theft if their is no kind of financial transaction. Nor more than me setting up a boombox in my window with the latest Lady Gaga CD blaring. Someone walking by listening in free is not stealing. And if someone decides to go home and download it as a result then copyright will have been broken but theft won't have occurred because her publisher did not "lose" a sale, they never had that sale to begin with it never happened. If blasting the CD over the boombox forever turns someone off to her music all the sales that won't have occurred are not now on my lap for lost sales because I convinced them they should never buy her CD. It's not theft in either case. The only theft that could occur would be if someone stole that CD(And frankly they are welcome too) and that would only be theft from me not her.

He does not understand the difference and he has demonstrated he does not WANT to understand the difference here. Theft is when you take something from someone and thus deny it to them. I take a candy bar you can't eat or sell. I don't take the theoretical possibility you could have some day eaten that candy bar or the theoretical sale of that candy bar.

[Alyeska]

I'm telling you Alyeska your wasting your time with Axis Kast on this issue, he does not understand. That's why he always uses a theft example instead of a copy example. He can not grasp the fact that violating copyright is not theft, can't be theft if their is no kind of financial transaction. Nor more than me setting up a boombox in my window with the latest Lady Gaga CD blaring. Someone walking by listening in free is not stealing. And if someone decides to go home and download it as a result then copyright will have been broken but theft won't have occurred because her publisher did not "lose" a sale, they never had that sale to begin with it never happened. If blasting the CD over the boombox forever turns someone off to her music all the sales that won't have occurred are not now on my lap for lost sales because I convinced them they should never buy her CD. It's not theft in either case. The only theft that could occur would be if someone stole that CD(And frankly they are welcome too) and that would only be theft from me not her.

He does not understand the difference and he has demonstrated he does not WANT to understand the difference here. Theft is when you take something from someone and thus deny it to them. I take a candy bar you can't eat or sell. I don't take the theoretical possibility you could have some day eaten that candy bar or the theoretical sale of that candy bar.

I still frequent SB.com. I can deal with hard cases.

[Coalition]

I see the issue is about one person downloading music, a pdf, or other electronic file that you have worked on for several weeks/months/years(?). They get the full benefit of the file, without any compensation to the author.

I.e. a group of people make a CD of music. They are hoping for sales to at least offset the food bills/advertising/raw materials purchased. They make 2-3 hundred CDs, and place them for sale. They only sell one CD, but they see lots of people listening to their music. It is because one person bought the CD, copied it online, and everyone else downloaded copies of it. The music group looks at each other, and decides to only perform live concerts, and only put up samples of their work online from now on. They also cut back on producing music, as there is no profit (and only loss) in it.

I see it as similar to sites that sell access to scientific articles, either a full pass for the whole site, or a fee per article. The author put work into it, and if you use the data, you should pay a fee to the author. If you download a song, dislike it, and delete it, I don't see that as a problem. But if you for example download a song, like it, and play it over and over, it would be proper courtesy to purchase the song from the singer. This is my opinion though, and it probably needs peer review.

[adam_grif]

They also cut back on producing music, as there is no profit (and only loss) in it.

Right, so if it's about compensating the person who did the work (which it should be) it's only an issue if you can demonstrate that significant numbers of people are downloading it for free instead of buying it. Since long before people were illegally downloading music on anything approaching an impactful scale, the industry's record sales have been declining. Not profits, you understand. The artists are simply getting more money from merchandising and live performances instead. The film industry has boomed during this period, as has the video-game industry.

So where's the evidence to suggest it's a problem? Or are you saying there's something intrinsically wrong with somebody illegally downloading it, as opposed to the creator not getting compensated?

[General Zod]

I see the issue is about one person downloading music, a pdf, or other electronic file that you have worked on for several weeks/months/years(?). They get the full benefit of the file, without any compensation to the author.

I.e. a group of people make a CD of music. They are hoping for sales to at least offset the food bills/advertising/raw materials purchased. They make 2-3 hundred CDs, and place them for sale. They only sell one CD, but they see lots of people listening to their music. It is because one person bought the CD, copied it online, and everyone else downloaded copies of it. The music group looks at each other, and decides to only perform live concerts, and only put up samples of their work online from now on. They also cut back on producing music, as there is no profit (and only loss) in it.

I see it as similar to sites that sell access to scientific articles, either a full pass for the whole site, or a fee per article. The author put work into it, and if you use the data, you should pay a fee to the author. If you download a song, dislike it, and delete it, I don't see that as a problem. But if you for example download a song, like it, and play it over and over, it would be proper courtesy to purchase the song from the singer. This is my opinion though, and it probably needs peer review.

When an album sells copies, generally it's not the actual artist getting the money, it's the label. This is an excellent example of how the labels screw over artists more than any pirate could. It's a lengthy read but fascinating all the same.

[Axis Kast]

When you violate a copyright, you haven't physicaly deprived them of anything and they are still free to sell.

Free to sell something which you have already taken? There is no question of personal industry here, or incidental exposure which could not be helped: the individual who downloads a song without paying for it is demanding a particular piece of intellectual property, and refusing compensation to the original author.

More to the point, a large part of the claimed piracy are people copying their own fucking music and movies to other formats. You rip your own DVD to your PC? Copyright Violation! It doesn't matter what the actual legality is, the industry openly admits that this is what they count as part of copyright violations. Those figures provided by the industry which are the basis for the laws being created are a LIE.

I very clearly excepted that issue from my consideration. Nice red herring.

How about the shopkeeper calling for the death of someone who split his loaf of bread in two and shared it with someone else?

The calling for a death is utterly unreasonable, but an entirely separate issue.

Right, so if it's about compensating the person who did the work (which it should be) it's only an issue if you can demonstrate that significant numbers of people are downloading it for free instead of buying it.

Why not just one? The man who steals a cookie from a shopping mart is not inflicting anything more than negligible loss. He remains liable.

[adam_grif]

Why not just one? The man who steals a cookie from a shopping mart is not inflicting anything more than negligible loss. He remains liable.

Yeah but the man who finds out what ingredients went into the cookies then goes home and bakes a batch himself doesn't.

[SirNitram]

the individual who downloads a song without paying for it is demanding a particular piece of intellectual property, and refusing compensation to the original author.

Exactly like the record label does. Wise up, half-wit. The author isn't really fucking compensated when they sell their records either. It comes from tours and shit.

But this is stuff based on the real world, and a link already cited, so it's going to sail through one in, make a funny noise in the cavity where a brain should be, and go out the other.

[Axis Kast]

Exactly like the record label does. Wise up, half-wit. The author isn't really fucking compensated when they sell their records either. It comes from tours and shit.

But this is stuff based on the real world, and a link already cited, so it's going to sail through one in, make a funny noise in the cavity where a brain should be, and go out the other.

What the fuck does the behavior of the record label have to do with any of this?

Either downloading music that one never paid for is taking somebody else's intellectual property, or it isn't. If that person has been defrauded in other ways, that doesn't come into it.

[General Zod]

Exactly like the record label does. Wise up, half-wit. The author isn't really fucking compensated when they sell their records either. It comes from tours and shit.

But this is stuff based on the real world, and a link already cited, so it's going to sail through one in, make a funny noise in the cavity where a brain should be, and go out the other.

What the fuck does the behavior of the record label have to do with any of this?

Either downloading music that one never paid for is taking somebody else's intellectual property, or it isn't. If that person has been defrauded in other ways, that doesn't come into it.

It's called copyright infringement, not theft. They're two distinct categories for a reason. In any case it's a complete red herring to the topic in the OP but for some reason record label cocksuckers feel the need to bring up whenever a discussion about piracy comes up. It's a dead horse that needs to stop getting flogged; especially when the tired old argument is usually that pirates are causing loss of sales to the artist, which is bullshit because of how record sales work. Unless an artist hits the bigtime they won't see a dime from those sales outside of what they've already been advanced for from the label.

[Axis Kast]

It's called copyright infringement, not theft. They're two distinct categories for a reason. In any case it's a complete red herring to the topic in the OP but for some reason record label cocksuckers feel the need to bring up whenever a discussion about piracy comes up. It's a dead horse that needs to stop getting flogged; especially when the tired old argument is usually that pirates are causing loss of sales to the artist, which is bullshit because of how record sales work. Unless an artist hits the bigtime they won't see a dime from those sales outside of what they've already been advanced for from the label.

I am distress by the number of people who behave as if copyright infringement is not somehow immoral. Is anybody here really willing to stand up and tell me that ease-of-access to free music has not reduced record sales? The connection is a logical one. These days, when one hears a song, it's a quick trip to the Internet to acquire it via a file-sharing entity. Why would they necessarily bother with the store, even if they like the artist?

[Superboy]

Why does everyone seem so obsessed with finding the perfect analogy? The situation isn't so complex that it needs to be simplified with some moronic metaphor.

It comes down to this: Do the owners of the intellectual property (and anyone else legally entitled to profit from it) lose money by having their property easily available for free? Is it true that most music records would sell better, even just a little, if "piracy" didn't exist?

If that is true then I think the record labels and recording artists have a right to have their IP protected. I don't see why we should expect them to foot the bill, protection from illegal activity is part of living in our society.

All of this has absolutely nothing to do with how morally the recording industry has been acting with regards to piracy. Their lies and poor behavior are irrelevant to the morality of piracy.

[General Zod]

It's called copyright infringement, not theft. They're two distinct categories for a reason. In any case it's a complete red herring to the topic in the OP but for some reason record label cocksuckers feel the need to bring up whenever a discussion about piracy comes up. It's a dead horse that needs to stop getting flogged; especially when the tired old argument is usually that pirates are causing loss of sales to the artist, which is bullshit because of how record sales work. Unless an artist hits the bigtime they won't see a dime from those sales outside of what they've already been advanced for from the label.

I am distress by the number of people who behave as if copyright infringement is not somehow immoral. Is anybody here really willing to stand up and tell me that ease-of-access to free music has not reduced record sales? The connection is a logical one. These days, when one hears a song, it's a quick trip to the Internet to acquire it via a file-sharing entity. Why would they necessarily bother with the store, even if they like the artist?

Nobody's saying copyright infringement isn't immoral you illiterate assclown. We're saying it's not theft and shouldn't be treated the same. Words have different, specific meanings. What part of this do you not comprehend? Should we spell it out in crayon with single syllable words?

[Axis Kast]

Nobody's saying copyright infringement isn't immoral you illiterate assclown. We're saying it's not theft and shouldn't be treated the same. Words have different, specific meanings. What part of this do you not comprehend? Should we spell it out in crayon with single syllable words?

Which is exactly why adam_grif asks why copyright infringement is even "a problem."

[Formless]

As to the behavior of the labels, if we are to constrain the flow of information for the sake of compensating the artists and authors, I would MUCH rather my money goes to the artists themselves, like copyright was originally intended to assure, than some guy in a two dollar suit who happens to hold a contract giving him a monopoly on the distribution of the art. The way copyright has been hijacked to suit the purposes of big business is what I have a problem with.

[General Zod]

Nobody's saying copyright infringement isn't immoral you illiterate assclown. We're saying it's not theft and shouldn't be treated the same. Words have different, specific meanings. What part of this do you not comprehend? Should we spell it out in crayon with single syllable words?

Which is exactly why adam_grif asks why copyright infringement is even "a problem."

His question was rather specific, but you're ignoring what it's actually saying in favor of repeating your "Infringement is theft" mantra and plugging your ears.

[Axis Kast]

His question was rather specific, but you're ignoring what it's actually saying in favor of repeating your "Infringement is theft" mantra and plugging your ears.

Superboy very effectively put forth exactly the ideas I wish to convey on the subject.

[adam_grif]

I am distress by the number of people who behave as if copyright infringement is not somehow immoral. Is anybody here really willing to stand up and tell me that ease-of-access to free music has not reduced record sales? The connection is a logical one.

Ease of access to free music? You mean like the Radio? Or the music videos they put up themselves on youtube?

You're not accounting for the inverse effect that widespread access to music of all kinds has - people discovering new music that they never would have otherwise, and then liking it so much they buy it. As CD sales have been declining, digital sales have been steadily rising (and have overtaken CD sales).

[Superboy]

Ease of access to free music? You mean like the Radio? Or the music videos they put up themselves on youtube?

You can't honestly make that comparison. They release only certain tracks from the albums to entice people to buy the whole thing. It's completely different from being able to download the entire album.

It's like saying it's okay to illegally download a complete video game because the company released a demo.

You're not accounting for the inverse effect that widespread access to music of all kinds has - people discovering new music that they never would have otherwise, and then liking it so much they buy it. As CD sales have been declining, digital sales have been steadily rising (and have overtaken CD sales).

If it's your argument that the recording industry is not actually losing any profit because of piracy, you're going to have to provide some numbers and sources to back that up.

If that's not what you're claiming, then stop going off topic.

[General Zod]

It's like saying it's okay to illegally download a complete video game because the company released a demo.

He was addressing the second sentence, not the first one. Do try to keep up.

If it's your argument that the recording industry is not actually losing any profit because of piracy, you're going to have to provide some numbers and sources to back that up.

I'll tell you what. Why don't you find me some numbers that they are losing money? So far its already been proven that the record labels are unscrupulous liars, so you'll excuse me if I don't believe their claims.

If that's not what you're claiming, then stop going off topic.

Exactly what is the topic anyway? Because its already been derailed from the original op into a discussion of the morality of piracy, just like every other fucking copyright thread out there because some stupid twats have to bring it up at every opportunity whether or not it's actually relevant. It's almost as fucking bad as trying to discuss anything related to gun control or Israel vs. Palestine.

[Starglider]

The situation with copyright infringement is a foretaste of 'post scarcity economics'. The marginal cost of duplication is virtually zero, so it is fairly trivial to give everyone who can afford broadband access to all the media they want. However, we have to fund production of media somehow, and advertising doesn't always cut it. The problem is, even ignoring piracy, setting a price per copy is inherently inefficient. At any given price, you will lose some customers who would have bought your downloadable song/movie etc if it had been cheaper, and you will undercharge some customers who would have paid more. From the consumer's perspective, they are still suffering from artificial scarcity; a teenager may be able to afford five blu-ray discs a month, but once they have spent all they can on media what is the point of preventing them from accessing more? So they download illegally, but then there is the tempting option of spending no money on media.

One alternative is the Zune model. You pay $15/month and can access as much music as you like - as long as you keep paying the subscription. However people like owning copies of things, and there's the issue of right to reuse material in mixes and derivative compositions. The socialist version is illustrated by the BBC license fee model - every citizen is legally required to pay $12/month or so if they have a TV.