backtop


Print 180 comment(s) - last by rdeegvainl.. on Feb 22 at 10:35 AM

16 countries recommended for U.S. government watchdogs against digital piracy

The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), a coalition representing copyright-based industries such as the MPAA, RIAA, BSA and the ESA, submitted its recommendations to the Bush administration in its “Special 301” review of copyright piracy and market access problems around the world.

As they have in past years, China and Russia remain key problem countries, but most surprising to some are the new additions the coalition is targeting for 2007. IIPA recommends that an additional 14 countries be placed on the “Priority Watch List,” joining China and Russia for a total of 16 countries.

“Many of the key markets around the world that are infected with high levels of copyright piracy or deny effective market access to copyright industries,” said Eric H. Smith of the IIPA. “The unwillingness of the countries identified in our submission to curb high rates of piracy – in most countries, through more effective and deterrent enforcement – saps the U.S. economy of the high-paying jobs and strong growth rates that make this sector critical to the health of the U.S. economy.”

Canada is targeted as one of the biggest offenders out of all developed nations. “Canada’s long tenure on the USTR Watch List seems to have had no discernible effect on its copyright policy. Almost alone among developed economies in the OECD, Canada has taken no steps toward modernizing its copyright law to meet the new global minimum standards of the WIPO Internet Treaties,” the IIPA wrote in its filing to U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab. “Its enforcement record also falls far short of what should be expected of our neighbor and largest trading partner … Canada lacks effective border controls on pirated products, and most of its other enforcement efforts suffer from insufficient resources and a lack of deterrent impact.”

The report states that pirates have taken advantage of the gaps in Canadian law to make it a “leading exporter” of camcorder bootleg movies and modchips for video game consoles. Officials at Industry Canada did not comment directly on the report, but spokesman David Dummer did say to the Globe and Mail, “The government of Canada is working actively on the copyright file and will take the time necessary to ensure that revisions to this important framework legislation have been fully thought through.”

The IIPA indicated that the new Canadian Conservative government that took office in March 2006 has expressed greater commitment to modernization of Canada’s copyright laws than did the previous Liberal rule, but to date it has not released a draft of legislation.

Steering its attentions from north to south of the U.S., the IIPA also lists Mexico as the other sore spot in North America. Out of all estimated total trade losses due to piracy, Mexico ranked only behind China and Russia, making it the third highest on the priority watch list. Mexico’s estimated $1 billion lost is less than half of the losses from China and Russia, but is almost double of Canada’s fourth place $551 million.

“The sheer dimension of the piracy problem in the Mexican market remains severe. Piracy involving hard goods, optical discs, Internet piracy, street piracy, and unauthorized photocopying at universities continued at high levels,” the IIPA wrote.

The IIPA suggests that Mexico must focus efforts to fight piracy in well-know street markets (San Juan de Dios in Guadalajara) and distribution centers (such as like Tepito in the Federal District) where vast quantities of pirated goods are sold in broad daylight. Other recommendations include: increased resources for enforcement agencies and improved public awareness of the nature and repercussions of rampant piracy; intensified judicial training; stronger border measures; and stopping illegal photocopying by copy shops on or near major university campuses.

The IIPA is not only targeting countries that are inducing massive trade losses, the coalition is also putting priority on governments who do not have appropriate copyright laws in place. For example, Israel ranks near the bottom in terms of total losses at $98 million, but is on the priority list because of the IIPA’s dissatisfaction with a copyright bill passed by the Knesset, the Israeli government’s legislative body.

“The bill, if passed in its current language, would discriminate against foreign producers of sound recordings specifically, and potentially violate Israel’s bilateral obligations to the United States. The government of Israel should refrain from taking any steps that would weaken copyright protection, particularly for foreign sound recordings, at a time when copyright protection is increasingly fragile in Israel,” filed the IIPA.

The IIPA finds that the bill draft does not include provisions to protect against circumvention of technological protection measures used to protect digital artistic works and should be rejected by the Knesset. The IIPA also complains that the Israeli police “are not actively pursuing Internet piracy cases and are not willing to assist in the raiding of Internet pirates.”

Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, India, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine and Venezuela are the other countries named in the IIPA’s Priority Watch List.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

i probem with how international pricing works
By Papa Lorenzo on 2/16/2007 3:12:15 AM , Rating: 5
i live in israel and yes, there is a piracy problem here.
however, there is no way to solve this problem until the big firms understand that they must charge different in some places.
the minimum wage in israel is less then $1000US a month.
the average wage is less then $2000 a month.
software and other products are priced in israel as if we are earning like western europians or americans. to most israelis it just doesn't make any economical sense to splash out the high prices on office, windows, other utilities and especially games.
games new game can cost here between 55-75 dollars. maybe that is the same as you americans pay but for us it's a lot more money.
office can cost here more then a quarter of a minimum wage.
it's ridiculous.
if they want piracy to stop then they must figure out a new international pricing scheme which would set prices according to the countries average income/minimum wage/GDP/currency power...




By Papa Lorenzo on 2/16/2007 3:54:58 AM , Rating: 3
1st i=a


By crystal clear on 2/16/2007 4:33:38 AM , Rating: 2
"there is a piracy problem here"

Yes it exist all over the world incl the USA-whats so great about ISRAEL?-Israel is not any special case.

"to most israelis it just doesn't make any economical sense to splash out the high prices on office, windows, other "

You have the highest taxation rate in the world-sometimes
200% custom duty-"THAT DOESNT MAKE ANY ECONOMIC SENSE"
Your Income tax is one of the highest in the world-Now dont quote statistics.Add to this the VAT.

The problem is on your side (in your case)

"which would set prices according to the countries average income/minimum wage/GDP/currency power... "

Only to have cheap priced products as per your scheme-

RE-EXPORTED BACK TO THE USA & other countries for a fat profit.(on the grey/black market)

Countries should cut their taxes to make these products
affordable.










RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By Tsuwamono on 2/18/2007 11:48:29 AM , Rating: 2
maybe you should take a look at Denmark's tax rate.


By GNStudios on 2/18/2007 1:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
or Swedens. My dads incometax is 56%.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By Belegost on 2/16/2007 5:04:16 AM , Rating: 3
I live in the US, and I'm rather against this sort of pricing structure. So I'm going to make two points here: 1) Why many companies don't price by region 2) Why I'm against the idea.

1) Under current US copyright law, if an item is legally purchased in a foreign country, and then subsequently imported to the US, it can be resold without any restrictions from the copyright holder. There are in fact markets (the most well-known being university textbooks) that market at different price points in different regions. Taking the textbooks example, I'm a grad student at UCSD, this quarter I had to buy 2 engineering textbooks. One of the books cost $150US here in the states, however I bought the identical book from an exporter in the UK, I paid $70US after international shipping costs. Had I chose to, I could have bought a cheaper version from India (paperback, low quality printing) for $25US after shipping costs. And, under US law this is legal, and I hold full rights to the book. Of course the textbook companies do not at all appreciate this.

However, this brings me to point 2) Why should I subsidize your materials? A company has to price products so that it makes money on the sales, and if it prices it significantly lower in one region then the regions paying the higher prices are in effect paying extra to allow this. Somehow I highly doubt the book publishers could recoup the costs on a book if they sold it globally for the $8 they sell it for in India.

I call BS. Why should I pay for other people to get things for less than the true cost? Especially things like textbooks, and software which help people who I am in competition with for jobs.

Piracy has the same effect, but at least then the people doing the pirating are legally wrong.

Oh, and as for the minimum wage - here in the US the federal minimum wage is currently around $8/hour. Working a standard 40 hour week, that produces $1280/month gross income, which is then subject to federal, state, and local taxes and withholdings. It isn't as though things are so much richer here.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By Sunbird on 2/16/2007 8:16:00 AM , Rating: 2
Well, the rest of the world pays more for hardware than the US. To buy a 8800GTX graphics card here (South Africa,not a typical down in the dumops african country)) costs at minimum $850 if converted to US currency. And thats the cheapest one I could find locally.

Seems it all just balances out in the end...


By Chillin1248 on 2/16/2007 9:52:23 AM , Rating: 2
To buy a 7600 GT in Israel would cost me roughly $250 after taxes, I purchased mine from the U.S. and had a friend bring it over for only $128; a big disparity. Good luck getting a 8800 GTX.

And for further amusement, Windows Vista was first launched in Israel; however ironically it did not come with Hebrew supported.

Cars here in Israel carry a roughly 89% or more tax rate, that without the import costs and custom taxes. So a car that costs maybe $12,000 in America would cost here roughly $36,000. Gas here is also double the U.S. So directly comparing wages is not the same as comparing living costs. Also the wages are taxed :)

-------
Chillin


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By Tsuwamono on 2/18/2007 11:52:09 AM , Rating: 2
where do your taxes go anyway? In canada our sales tax is 15% for most provinces but go as low as 7 in Alberta. However we have social programs like public health care, VASTLY reduced tuition costs and things like welfare, get back to work programs, government retirement plans etc.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By Russell on 2/19/2007 5:06:28 AM , Rating: 2
Their taxes go to the same place US taxes go: towards weapons.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/19/2007 8:20:44 AM , Rating: 3
> "Their taxes go to the same place US taxes go: towards weapons..."

Do people really misunderstand their own government budget this badly? The largest component by far of both the US and Canadian budgets is entitlement and wealth redistribution programs-- not the military.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By Some1ne on 2/16/2007 6:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Piracy has the same effect, but at least then the people doing the pirating are legally wrong.


Which is exactly why the laws need to be changed. The IIPA is the true plague, and piracy is just part of the cure.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By Tyler 86 on 2/16/2007 8:32:35 PM , Rating: 2
The IIPA may be a plague, but piracy will never be part of a cure.

Piracy problems or not, they are making a tidy profit.
People who won't buy for any reason, won't buy; the IIPA will sink.


By Tsuwamono on 2/18/2007 11:53:47 AM , Rating: 2
*Singing* Ding dong the witch is dead *End singing*


By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 8:33:34 AM , Rating: 2
> "the minimum wage in israel is less then $1000US a month...

In the US, the minimum wage is $1030 a month. I'm not seeing a big difference here.

> "if they want piracy to stop then they must figure out a new international pricing scheme which would set prices according to the countries average income/minimum wage/GDP/currency power..."

They should do the same thing for sports cars also. That way you could buy a Ferrari in China for $99.

Seriously, the logic that "we have a right to steal because we can't afford to buy" has got to go. Especially when you're using it to justify pirating a $50 game.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By wien on 2/16/2007 9:08:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They should do the same thing for sports cars also. That way you could buy a Ferrari in China for $99.
Until someone invents an automated Ferrari replicator, please, for the sake of my sanity, drop that argument. It's not even close to being the same thing.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 9:23:09 AM , Rating: 3
> "It's not even close to being the same thing..."

Until someone invents intellectual property that invents itself, promotes itself, and distributes itself, its exactly the same thing.

As a holder of numerous patents, I make a great deal of money off intellectual property. A person can easily replicate my work for zero cost. But doing so robs me, and ignores not only the time I spent to develop that patent, but the decades of schooling and training I needed in preparation for it.

So when new patents, songs, and videos start appearing out of thin air, you can call it an invalid argument. Until then, its perfectly on the mark.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By wien on 2/16/2007 9:52:53 AM , Rating: 2
No. You lost nothing. You may have failed to earn something. If you can't see the difference there, I just don't know what to tell you.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 10:02:08 AM , Rating: 2
I lost something...the ability to control usage of something I own. If you think that's trivial, I wonder how you'd react to someone using your car or your own without your permission. If your own property was involved, I think you'd suddenly develop a healthy respect for property rights.

As for monetary damages, those exist as well. Even if the thief would not otherwise have licensed it, there is the issue of dilution. If they manufacture products using my patents, they compete with companies who DO pay patent license fees. And that means less sales for them, which translates to less royalties for me.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By wien on 2/16/2007 10:14:52 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you think that's trivial, I wonder how you'd react to someone using your car or your own without your permission.
If someone used my car without my permission, that would rob me of my ability to use said car. That just isn't the case with IP/software/anything easily duplicable.
quote:
If they manufacture products using my patents, they compete with companies who DO pay patent license fees. And that means less sales for them, which translates to less royalties for me.
Again. Not even in that case did you lose anything. You failed to earn royalties you may have otherwise earned. You lost nothing you had before!

Note that I'm not in any way defending pirating or IP "theft". I'm after the argument equating theft of IP to theft of worldly goods. It's not the same thing, so stop doing it. Find a better analogy.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 10:33:27 AM , Rating: 1
> "If someone used my car without my permission, that would rob me of my ability to use said car..."

I'll just use it at night while you're asleep. And I'll only use your house during the day when you're at work. Since you don't mind, just send me the keys.

> " You failed to earn royalties you may have otherwise earned. You lost nothing you had before!"

I lost the expectation of future value. The notion that this isn't a real loss reveals a basic misunderstanding of a primary tenet of our legal and economic system.

Say you agree to work for a company for half-salary, under the promise that, in five years, they'll pay you a $500,000 bonus. When that time comes, they just say "sorry, we changed our minds!". Under your logic, you lost nothing, and have no right to complain.

Your viewpoint is utterly flawed. A credit card company lends you money on the expectation of future payback, plus interest. If you decide not to pay, they most certainly lost something....and they'll take you to court to prove it.

Modern society can't function without this most basic concept. And a person who doesn't understand it can't function in that society either.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By wien on 2/16/2007 11:39:52 AM , Rating: 4
Jesus H Christ! How did this all of a sudden become about me being against the very concept of property? Or against the concept of contractual agreements for compensation?

Read what I'm writing here. Theft of IP is not the same thing as theft of a car. Duplication of a car is not the same as duplication of a software product, or licensing a patent. It's a stupid analogy, and has nothing to do with the reality of how IP works.

Ferrari can't sell a Ferrari for $99 in China, because it costs more in raw-materials/man-hours to build a one. It doesn't cost Microsoft $378.99 to make a new copy of Windows Vista Ultimate for sale in China. It's a flawed analogy!


By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 11:47:24 AM , Rating: 1
> "How did this all of a sudden become about me being against the very concept of property?"

Very simply. Because you don't want to respect the rights of property ownership. You want to force someone to give you some measure of control over their own property. And that attacks one of the very foundations of modern civilization.

> "It doesn't cost Microsoft $378.99 to make a new copy of Windows Vista ..."

No it only costs them a few pennies. But if they sold every copy for that, they'd lose billion of dollars. Is a concept such as fixed vs. amortized costs really so hard to grasp?

Even cars contain intellectual property. And the price you pay reflects not only the cost of the raw materials and assembly labor, but the salaries paid to the designers and engineers. If GM sold cars just for production costs, they'd be out of business in a year. And so would Microsoft.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By wien on 2/16/2007 12:03:17 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Very simply. Because you don't want to respect the rights of property ownership.
I'd be very happy if you could show me exactly where I said that. You're attributing ideas to me, when I never said any such thing. Great way to have an argument though. Keep people on the defensive, instead of dealing with their point. Kudos.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 12:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
> "I'd be very happy if you could show me exactly where I said that..."

When you said that the loss of future value wasn't a real loss. Also by saying that using a person's property without permission was acceptable, as long as they weren't themselves trying to use it at the time.

> "Great way to have an argument though. Keep people on the defensive, instead of dealing with their point"

I answered your point, and so far you've failed to address mine. A future expectation of value is real value. If you lose it, you've suffered a loss. Why not address that point, instead of attempting to attack me personally?



RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By mino on 2/16/2007 12:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
Expectation of value is NOT a value in its own name. It is expectation! While it may be calculated as value in the accounting, it is not.
Another problem is that what some companies claim is like: hey we've lost $10bn expected value in that country last year! What they fail to say is that the GDP of that country is in the $20bn range. Therefore the whole "expectation" is mostly PR talk as it must have been clear to SW vendor even a few years back that no country would pay(nor is capable of paying) 50% GDP for licences...
The same with companies. If $1m revenue food company is considered $200k missed oportunity is crazy. The possibilities of a lawfull resolution are usually 2:
- the company would switch to cheaper vendor
- the company would go bankrupt therefore no licenses sold...


By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 12:56:37 PM , Rating: 3
> "Expectation of value is NOT a value in its own name"

Of course it is. And that abstract concept is the basis of any modern economic system. You loan someone money, you have the expectation of being repaid. If that doesn't happen, you've suffered a loss. A real loss.

> "Therefore the whole "expectation" is mostly PR talk as[no country] would pay 50% GDP for licences... "

I don't recall anyone claiming a $10B loss in a nation with a $20B GDP. Sure you're not exaggerating this?



By mino on 2/16/2007 1:11:08 PM , Rating: 2
That fictual number was just to illustrate the point, in every economy the amount of expandable money for IP is of course different but far below that number. But that $200k vs. $1m company is from some news a few yrs back.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By Lego on 2/16/2007 2:17:11 PM , Rating: 2
When you loan someone money you make some agreement with that person. By doing this you acquire the right to demand the fulfillment of that agreement (because both of you agreed to it). Moreover, after the actual procedure you become unable to use the money you loaned.
When someone replicates some SW he isn't bound to any agreement with vendor and he doesn't delete that SW (and source code) from all the vendor's computers. So, as was previously written by some people, vendor neither loses nor acquires anything ... as in the case when that someone wouldn't have bought or replicated that SW at all.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 2:33:09 PM , Rating: 2
> "By doing this you acquire the right to demand the fulfillment of that agreement (because both of you agreed to it)..."

And when you buy software or a CD, you agree to the terms of the sale as well. Which includes a prohibition against unauthorized copying.

In any case, you're missing the main point. My analogy was simply to prove that loss of an expected return is still an actual loss. If you develop a hot new technology and patent it, you have a real, tangible value, even if you don't yet have any money in hand. If someone infringes upon that patent, you have suffered a loss, just as if someone had reached into your wallet and taken money.


By Lego on 2/16/2007 3:55:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And when you buy software or a CD, you agree to the terms of the sale as well. Which includes a prohibition against unauthorized copying.

Well, when a person buys some pirated SW he in fact makes some "agreement" with a seller, and not with a producer of the SW. And this "agreement", apparently, does not include "a prohibition against unauthorized copying". When a person downloads some SW from the i-net he doesn't have any agreement with whomever at all.

quote:
If you develop a hot new technology and patent it, you have a real, tangible value

Actually, no ... until you _produce_ something tangible and unique (which cannot be replicated by a mouse click) with the help of that technology. The "technology" is just an intangible method of producing a tangible thing and this method consists of some aggregate of, again, intangible physics' and mathematics' theories. I cannot ride by a "technology" ("technologies") to my work, although I can ride by a car.

quote:
If someone infringes upon that patent, you have suffered a loss

Eh ... the previous paragraph replies to this. You don't lose anything ... neither your "technology" which you can still use and produce something nor money.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By wien on 2/16/2007 1:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also by saying that using a person's property without permission was acceptable, as long as they weren't themselves trying to use it at the time.
Oh come on now. You're smarter than that. I never said any such thing! If you look carefully, you'll see that I have never actually said what my stand on this issue is. All I've done so far is argue against what I believe to be a flawed analogy that gets thrown around every time this discussion rears it's ugly face.
quote:
A future expectation of value is real value. If you lose it, you've suffered a loss.
No you haven't. You've lost theoretical value. An expectation of value is exactly that; an expectation. You're in no way guaranteed this value. It's something you, perhaps rightly so, assume you're going to get, but it is nothing you are 100% guaranteed, or even entitled to get. People may very well not license any of your IP, nor "steal" it. Would that mean you lost something too?

That's the difference between IP theft and real theft. If someone steals your car, you have no car. If someone steals your idea, what has really changed from before?


By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 1:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
> "I never said any such thing!"

You said theft of a car was only wrong because it deprived you of its use. That certainly implies that its ok to borrow your car without permission, as long as you're not using it at the time.

> "I have never actually said what my stand on this issue is..."

Quite possibly that's why you're being misunderstood then. Why not take a stand and just tell us your real opinion?

> "If someone steals your idea, what has really changed from before? "

Then they've taken your property and used it without your consent...intellectual rape, if you will. What if someone drugged a woman and raped her without her knowledge. Yo use your logic, what "really changed" from before?

Of course, IP theft goes deeper than that, as it results in monetary damages as well. For people who make their living from intellectual property, its theft can and does mean financial ruin. It's no different from you having your paycheck stolen.




By rdeegvainl on 2/16/2007 2:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
Another way to look at it is, If you steal someones car, they don't have the car. If you use someones idea, they still have that idea. Saying that intellectual rights are the same as physical rights is akin to saying you can't use a word that i developed without my permission because it would be like taking my car. Though it may be wrong to pirate software, being as it is a business venture, the analogy used to compare the two is wrong.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 3:01:59 PM , Rating: 1
> "if you use someones idea, they still have that idea."

But its now worth less. As if you stole their car, wrecked it, then returned it. Just because they still have the vehicle, does that mean they didn't suffer a loss?

> "[it] is akin to saying you can't use a word that i developed."

If you trademark that word and use it to sell a product-- I can't.


By rdeegvainl on 2/22/2007 10:35:07 AM , Rating: 2
>"But its now worth less. As if you stole their car, wrecked it, then returned it. Just because they still have the vehicle, does that mean they didn't suffer a loss?"

There in lies the difference between physical theft and IP infringement that I was trying to explain. you make my point for me. You wrecked the car, the owner's "loss" was the "use" of the car they had paid for. In the case of IP infringement, you can still USE your idea, maybe people won't pay as much for it, but that doesn't mean you are robbed of your idea, just the ability to market it to its potential. That is the DIFFERENCE. So based on the laws of science, I have taken your theory of "no difference" and disproved it by finding a single counter example. Can you now support the NO difference nonsense?

>"If you trademark that word and use it to sell a product-- I can't

And yes you can use a word someone trademarked. Just not for profit. otherwise no one would be able to say "IPOD". And i don't see people paying royalties for using that word.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By deeznuts on 2/16/2007 5:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You said theft of a car was only wrong because it deprived you of its use. That certainly implies that its ok to borrow your car without permission, as long as you're not using it at the time.
Masher, you've got some horrible reading comprehension. He stated that theft of car was different then theft of IP, therefore your analogy was flawed. You jumped to the conclusion then that he was stating one was theft while another wasn't. I normally don't like to jump into other parties arguments, but I just had to. All he wanted to say was your analogy is flawed, use another one.

Regarding your comment about future expectation analogy (regarding loaning out money etc.) that is flawed too. If you loan money out, you get a contract for repayment, a note, that is not a future expectation, you have that today. I do agree with you future expectation has a value, it's not 100% of course, but it's still a value. A similar concept would be "goodwill" when you purchase an existing business. A value can be placed on that, it's not 100% of the expectation, but still a value. We'll leave that to valuation experts.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 6:02:34 PM , Rating: 1
> "If you loan money out, you get a contract for repayment, a note, that is not a future expectation, you have that today."

And if you hold a valuable patent or rights to a song, you have that today as well. And that has value, even though the actual monetary gain still lies in the future. The person to which I responded failed to see that.

> "He stated that theft of car was different then theft of IP..."

But neither he, nor anyone else here, has succesfully explained why stealing a car, damaging it, then returning it is different in essence to the theft of IP. In both cases you still retain the original property...but that property has been damaged by the theft.




RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By Tyler 86 on 2/16/2007 9:08:35 PM , Rating: 2
IP theft and physical theft are different, but both are wrong, and damaging.

Theft of a physical car versus intellectual property theft;
The physical element of the intellectual property is undamaged, even though it's market value (may have) changed.
The value element of a stolen car changes only on that car.

IP theft in some ways worse than physical theft, however, the IP commonly 'stolen' isn't plans for an automobile, or a nuclear weapon.

Physicly stealing a CD is 'less harmful' than stealing it's contents to the person being stolen from (in most cases), but more harmful to the company producing the content.

That's how it's different.

In the case of car theft, however, you lose possession of the physical property, whereas in IP theft, you never lose possession of the physical property, nor the intellectual property, even though the intellectual property itself is damaged.

IP theft between corperations, or people selling the stolen material second hand is far worse than physical theft, because they are able to pollute the value of the IP further by reproducing the physical aspect of the IP.

Stealing a nuclear bomb (physical property) and then reverse engineering it to a reproducable degree (intellectual property) has far greater harmful potential, and causes far more harm to both property aspects.

"Stealing" a song, by reproducing it, yet not selling it, should be less than minor theft. Redistributing it without selling it, is minor theft. Selling the reproductions is theft; true piracy.

Typicly, if the reproductions are poor, they end up benefiting the original IP holders.
High quality reproductions being sold far under price to a large audience, while being liable for large monetary sums of damage, also clearly demonstrates a product failure.

Cars come with keys. Some cars have anti-theft systems. Cars are easy to spot. Cars are easy to trace. Cars are heavy. Cars are commonly in public, policed areas.
They are still stolen, but due to the nature of the product, the automotive industry doesn't make nearly as much noise as the members of the IIPA do.

Songs, now, come with keys. Keys are good at slowing down intruders. Songs aren't easy to spot. They're tucked away inside small spinning discs, sometimes in various formats, unkeyed, or with new keys. Songs aren't easy to trace. There's a gigantic traffic mesh called 'the internet' in the way. They can't see the forest for the trees; literally, they can't see the distribution network for the traffic. Songs aren't in public areas, and are not policed.


The market needs to change, piracy still needs to be pursued, yet the RIAA would rather just whine because they're still making a tidy profit, dispite their 'best efforts'.


By Tyler 86 on 2/16/2007 9:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
How the heck did I miss it;
"Physicly stealing a CD is 'less harmful'", needs to be "Intellectual stealing a CD is 'less harmful'"...


By deeznuts on 2/16/2007 10:52:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
But neither he, nor anyone else here, has succesfully explained why stealing a car, damaging it, then returning it is different in essence to the theft of IP. In both cases you still retain the original property...but that property has been damaged by the theft.


I still can't believe you don't see the difference of owning an actual vessel vs. intellectual property. The two are inherently different. In your example, the moment the car is stolen the owner is deprived of possession and use of his property. He is deprived of such until the thief, in your scenario, returns it, damaged as you say. No such thing happens with IP. IP theft is almost a misnomer, IP rights can be "infringed" not stolen, unless there is only one copy in the whole world on a CD and I break into the creator's house and steal it!

Theft of IP and theft of property are both wrong, but they are different.


By Ringold on 2/17/2007 3:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure how you guys can be arguing over the loss of a future value being an actual current-day loss. It IS. The stock market makes billion dollar swings based not on current revenue streams but the present value of expected future income. Earnings reports many times are irrelevant in the sense that often times nobody cares how it did over the last 3 months; they're interested primarily in the next 3mo, 12mo, and longer term.

I get the feeling some of you guys studied too much accounting in college. Accounting explains tax bills and cash flow; not profit or loss, and does nothing to explain why anybody gets out of bed in the morning. (Hint: Act of getting out of bed costs nothing, gains nothing. That would mystify an accountant. You get out of the bed because of the PRESENT VALUE of EXPECTED FUTURE INCOME derived from going to work later on, and then enjoying that income later on)


By qualme on 2/21/2007 10:59:49 AM , Rating: 2
wien, you're so wrong on this point, just go back to school or something. Your sophistry is giving me a headache.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By sviola on 2/16/2007 10:19:37 AM , Rating: 2
Actuallu, it's not the same. Would be if your IP was in a media and that's the only media you have with it.

The car IP is owned by the manufacturer. And he sells the car for you and allows you to do what you want with it. Why can't software and music industries do the same?



By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 10:39:01 AM , Rating: 2
> "The car IP is owned by the manufacturer. And he sells the car for you and allows you to do what you want with it."

He allows you to do what you want with that copy of the car. You can take it where ever you want, whenevever you like...even destroy it if you want. Just as you can with your copy of a CD or DVD.

Now if you try to copy that car's design or engineering, you'll instantly be sued, and rightly so. There is no real difference between the industries.



RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By sviola on 2/16/2007 10:54:26 AM , Rating: 2
But you can't do whatever you like with your copy of the song you have.

And there's a huge difference in copying a file that is a song and copying a song.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 10:57:16 AM , Rating: 2
> "But you can't do whatever you like with your copy of the song you have."

Sure you can. You can take it anywhere, play it whenever you like, even use it as a frisbee if you want. You just can't make another copy of your copy. Just like you're not free to make a copy of the CPU in your computer, or the design of your car.


By rcc on 2/16/2007 3:11:11 PM , Rating: 1
Precisely. The main problem that our neo economists have is that they differentiate legalities by what is easy to duplicate.

i.e. It's easy to duplicate a CD, song, movie, operating system, etc. if you have a computer. Therefore, it should be legal to do so. I can, therefore I should be allowed to. It's a load of bunk.

A car on the other hand, is quite difficult to duplicate. Beyond the abilities of most people. Therefore it must be "real" property and illegal to steal or duplicate.

Get over yourselves, and your feelings of entitlement. It's illegal, and it's wrong, fooling yourselves into thinking otherwise because it makes you feel better is also a load of crap. Own up, it probably won't keep the neo econimists ( I like that term, is it in use yet?), from doing what they want to do, but at least you won't be fooling yourselves anymore.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By SmokeRngs on 2/16/2007 3:30:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now if you try to copy that car's design or engineering, you'll instantly be sued, and rightly so. There is no real difference between the industries.


Incorrect.

I can make a complete and total copy of my car. Every part of it is available for me to purchase. After purchasing or creating the parts and assembling the car, I have a copy. The car manufacturer can't do anything about it. Sure, it's extremely cost prohibitive to do that, but I can do it.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 3:56:28 PM , Rating: 1
> "Every part of it is available for me to purchase...."

Err, that's not making a copy, that's buying a copy...one piece at a time. The price for each piece has both manufacturing and IP costs built into it.

You can do the same thing with albums also. Buy them, one song at a time.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By SmokeRngs on 2/16/2007 5:11:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Err, that's not making a copy, that's buying a copy...one piece at a time. The price for each piece has both manufacturing and IP costs built into it.

You can do the same thing with albums also. Buy them, one song at a time.


No, it's not buying a copy; it's buying parts. I am not buying another copy of the car. It's the same with "kit cars". You are not buying a copy of the car, just the parts for one. There is a distinction there.

Just because I have all the pieces to something does not mean I purchased a copy. By your definition, there are a lot of "greatest hits" albums I have copies of that I wasn't aware of. I have all those songs included on other albums. However, I've never purchased the "greatest hits" albums so I don't actually have a copy of the albums. I just have the songs included on those albums. As with the car, I didn't purchase a copy of the car, just the parts included in the car.


By deeznuts on 2/16/2007 5:41:13 PM , Rating: 4
Again you guys are equating tangible property with intellectual property. Masher, no matter what you say, tangible property analogies with IP is always flawed. Think about it this way, if they were the same why the need for IP law then? A whole subsection of the legal framework for IP, when it is the same? If it is the same as your analogies attempt to show, we wouldn't need IP law. It's a different animal altogether. A car is a car, made up of specific parts. IP is not the CD itself. The CD is a medium to carry the song/music/etc. A song can be placed on a floppy, a CD, a hard drive, transmitted over radio, sattelite, etc.

A book can be printed on paper, in electronic form as a PDF, ebook, etc. If you can't see how inherently diffferent that is from a car, well ...


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By sviola on 2/16/2007 10:13:16 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not in favour of pirating, but companies charge abusive prices on some countries, here is an example:

In Brazil, minimum wage is around $170. And they charge around $15 for a CD and $20 for a DVD. A pc game is around $50 (and there are reduced taxes on software and computer items here) and a PS2 game is around $100.
Does this make sense to a normal person? To charge in a poor country the same they charge in one of the richest countries in the world?

You have a very limited view of the things around the world. Most people around the world are poor, and the media is always throwing "buy this to be cool" messages all around. They create the need for the items, and then complain when people that don't have the money to afford pirate it? Well, I don't see a way out of it...they can try for the rest of eternity and won't end pirating.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By gramboh on 2/16/2007 10:49:45 AM , Rating: 2
Economically, yes, they should charge the same price for consumer goods in every market, or at least charge a price that nets them the same profit in that cost centre. The production cost of the game is fixed, so it doesn't make sense to sell it for less and make a loss in poorer countries. The only way they could sell it for less would be if they could produce it in the country with lower wages and capture those savings.

Of course in reality, piracy will be rampant for digital content in poorer countries. It's too bad industry groups will probably try to pressure their government as part of trade union agreements.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By sviola on 2/16/2007 11:00:46 AM , Rating: 2
According to your assumption, then a AAA title in the UK and Europe should be sold by the same price than in the US. In the US they're sold for $50 in UK for 50 pounds and Europe for €50. But 50 pounds = 110 dollars and €50 = $70. Well, there seems to be something wrong here, as they shouldn't be charging more if the game is developed in the US. They should charge 25 pounds and €33 in those markets.

Also, they shouldn't charge you the same ammount if they add in-game advertisements, which are annoying and disruptive.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 11:11:05 AM , Rating: 2
> "Well, there seems to be something wrong here, as they shouldn't be charging more if the game..."

Many products are priced higher in Europe due to the additional costs of doing business in an EU nation. Sometimes a company just eats the extra cost. Their choice...don't quibble over it.

> "Also, they shouldn't charge you the same ammount if they add in-game advertisements..."

Who are you to keep telling other people what they should or shouldn't charge? Do you want someone to tell you what price you're allowed to charge when you next sell your home or your car? Is the concept of freedom totally lost upon you?

Let a company set whatever price they want. If you don't like the price, don't buy the product.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 11:11:06 AM , Rating: 2
> "Well, there seems to be something wrong here, as they shouldn't be charging more if the game..."

Many products are priced higher in Europe due to the additional costs of doing business in an EU nation. Sometimes a company just eats the extra cost. Their choice...don't quibble over it.

> "Also, they shouldn't charge you the same ammount if they add in-game advertisements..."

Who are you to keep telling other people what they should or shouldn't charge? Do you want someone to tell you what price you're allowed to charge when you next sell your home or your car? Is the concept of freedom totally lost upon you?

Let a company set whatever price they want. If you don't like the price, don't buy the product.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By mino on 2/16/2007 11:41:57 AM , Rating: 2
If a set of companies develop oligopoly enviriment the consumer has VERY hard chioce to make. Not to buy a product (which may i.e. result in him beeing considered socially-inept for not having a stopckpile of CD's) or to just submit to the oligopoly.
Usually this scenario is the issue, to the high prices on several products but the whole market beeing overpriced. It is many times maintained by artificially increasing even prices for domestic goods by selling them at import prices.
To market local artist (where the costs are 99% at the local expense-rate) at the same price as imported(allready overpriced) one in a country with ~$400 common infome is much closer to burglary to me than to the so-called "market-price".


By mino on 2/16/2007 11:48:11 AM , Rating: 2
hoping Opera implements spellcheck soon :)


By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 11:55:20 AM , Rating: 3
> "Not to buy a product [and] be considered socially-inept...or to just submit to the oligopoly...

All the wild talk of an "oligopoly" aside, the fact remains that tens of thousands of artists are not with RIAA labels, and have their music freely available on the Internet.

But you don't want their music...you want the RIAA bands. Why? I suppose its the fear you mention of being labelled "socially inept". That feeling is the result of billions of dollars spent by labels to promote their music. That's why artists sign with those labels. Those dollars pay off.

If you don't like the game, get off the bandwagon. No one is forcing you to buy CDs. Stand up the peer pressure and those friends who label you socially inept! Its really not as hard as it sounds.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By mino on 2/16/2007 12:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
Most local bands are NOT able to publish music by non-RIAA related publish houses as those are almost non-existent. If they even decide to publish on they own the have no means to get to the distribution chain(not to mention radio) which is either owned by or very closely related to main publishing houses.

As for Internet, not everywhere the internet is a given.

While _I_ consider it the basic neccesity (more so than a phone), if one has to pay 5% of its income for BASIC(dial or 1G/month plan) internet access, it cannot be considered an option for any mass (professionall) music distribution.

In 10 yrs, you would be right on spot.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 1:02:49 PM , Rating: 2
> "As for Internet, not everywhere the internet is a given"

Anyone who pirates songs over the Internet certainly has Internet access. So for someone here to claim they're being subjected to an "oligopoly" of RIAA-sponsored music is total rubbish. They're simply trying to justify their actions.



By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 10:59:37 AM , Rating: 4
> "They create the need for the items."

Let's be honest here. No one "needs" a CD or a DVD. They just want it. And some people are willing to steal to get it.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By sviola on 2/16/2007 11:08:17 AM , Rating: 2
No one does? Have you ever heard of the human need to have fun? People cannot only live of food and work. They'd get insane.
Entertainment is a human need, and our society has made this need turn into music, movies, books, games and related things.

Also, there's a technic in marketing (i don't recall the name right now :( ) that has as it's objective to create an uneeded thing become needed, by convincing people that they need something they don't need. And, well, all companies use this to sell their items, as most things we use aren't really needed...



By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 11:14:13 AM , Rating: 3
> "Entertainment is a human need..."

And for ten thousand years, humans filled that need without CDs or DVDs. Even today, hundreds of millions of people manage their entire lives without them. Calling an iPod full of music a "human need" is just a rationalization of your own wants and desires.



RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By cochy on 2/16/2007 11:23:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, there's a technic in marketing (i don't recall the name right now :( ) that has as it's objective to create an uneeded thing become needed, by convincing people that they need something they don't need. And, well, all companies use this to sell their items, as most things we use aren't really needed...


That's not a technique. That's the goal of every advertisement. I really do not need to upgrade to Windows Vista, but every time I see an ad for it, for about 20 seconds I feel as though I need to get it. Lucky it only lasts for 20 seconds lol.

I live in Canada. An RCMP officer made a presentation in my computer forensics class last week. When asked about using pirated software he was quick to mention that it was a grey area. If I download and use pirated software, or music for personal use, I'm pretty much safe from criminal actions, however I could be held monetarily liable from the actual copyright holders themselves, if they decide to pursue legal action against me. If I pirate and sell materials for personal profit the current laws will roast me. He made that pretty clear.


By mino on 2/16/2007 11:34:49 AM , Rating: 2
"I really do not need to upgrade to Windows Vista, but every time I see an ad for it, for about 20 seconds I feel as though I need to get it."

Well, I usually iether switch most annoying or repating ads off or face the reality of getting angry.
I however accept any ad that tries to present the product or educate the consumer in polite way.
To have some voice screem on me from my hi-fi ssystem (or some ad play 20 times a day on radio) means that I a priori decide to ignore the products of that company. They would have to be clearly superior to competition for me to even consider them as possible option.

But thats me. I was not raised on aggresive ads (as most kids indeveloped world are now) and as such have developed strong conscious antipaty to it once it became common in my vicinity.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By cochy on 2/16/2007 11:43:09 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, I'll expand on my comment and mention that the RCMP officer wasn't only referring to private citizens. He was also referring to small and medium sized companies using pirated software. If during an investigation the police discovered pirated software all over a certain companies computers, the most they would do is mention to the president that using pirated software is wrong. That's it. They would take it a step further. When asked why they wouldn't, he replied mainly because of the lack of resources in law enforcement to deal with this issue.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 11:56:47 AM , Rating: 2
> "he replied mainly because of the lack of resources in law enforcement..."

Exactly. It's not a "grey area". Its illegal...but many agencies just don't have the manpower to enforce it.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By cochy on 2/16/2007 12:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
No no. It's definitely a grey area. He was specific in mentioning that. The report the article cites is correct. There isn't much legislation in place to deal with pirating materials which aren't being resold for profit.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 12:18:22 PM , Rating: 2
> "No no. It's definitely a grey area..."

Canadian Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42. Sec 42, specifies imprisonment for up to 5 years for anyone who knowingly infringes upon a copyright. Sec 27 defines infringement as anything beyond a single reproduction used only for backup purposes. Sounds pretty clear to me.


By cochy on 2/16/2007 12:34:18 PM , Rating: 2
1985 huh. Thanks for digging that up. Seems kinda out dated since times and technology have changed in leaps and bounds. Anyway, I'm just relaying what a federal police officer told me. I can make 50 copies of King Kong inside a court room and I won't be going anywhere for 5 years :P

The law is outdated new and more specific legislation is needed.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By mino on 2/16/2007 11:25:06 AM , Rating: 2
It's called induced addiction. Some narcotics do that...
Windows would NEVER be succsesfull in the developing countries had MS tries to enforce the licensing scheme there.
MS INTENTIONALLY puts blind eye on it as after they get huge market penetration by the ways of illegal copying and oversaturate the market to kill competition which DOES what it says and actually enforces its own licensing policy.

Remember that in many countries (such as mine) the US companies bought-out all local potential competitors during local economic turmoils and then set oligopoly prices even TWICE the prices of their goods in the US. This is especially clearly seen in phonographic industry.
Example: I pay for AVERAGE (US OR domestic!) album from $18 to $25 and ~ $15 if the item is on the mark et for a year or so. Also >$35 for bonus, DVD-A or high-demand title is common. I see no justification for such a price as the average wage here is in the $600/month range. Also all local expenses as staff, floor space, energy are of much lower cost than in the US.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 11:30:11 AM , Rating: 2
> "MS INTENTIONALLY puts blind eye on it ..."

What would you have them do? They're a US firm with zero enforcement rights even in America, much less anywhere else in the world. If local governments refuse to take action, there's not much they can do.

They're not "turning a blind eye". And even if they were, it doesn't justify the piracy itself.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By mino on 2/16/2007 12:07:18 PM , Rating: 2
I live in Slovakia and we have here ENFORCEABLE IP laws from the early 90-ties.
The first time I remember FIRST serious effort put up by MS and allies to punnisg illegal coppying was some 2-3 yrs ago.
By serious attempts I meas that they started reporting license abuse to police in a significant way.
All the time they were, of course, wery well aware of the situation.
Actually I do not see their tactics of narcotics dealers (give for free then hard-cash) as the most disturbing.
Even so they have almost completely annihilated local SW vendors by letting people use their product allmost for free thus effectively dumping the price.
What makes me angry is that a company intentionally -FOR ITS OWN LONG-TERM BENEFIT- creates hugely illegal user-base in some country to achieve market-share it would NEVER achieve otherwise. Then starts putting fingers on that coutry and using US gov backing to pressure the gov of our country which had pretty much nothing to do with the spread of the illegal SW use -when the vendor does NOT report KNOWN abuse, the police has most of the time no way to know about it.
As a sidenote, the so-called piracy rate of domestic SW here is estimated several times lower than for imported SW... Guess why.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 12:24:58 PM , Rating: 2
> "I live in Slovakia and we have here ENFORCEABLE IP laws from the early 90-ties..."

There's a huge difference between enforceable laws and enforced laws.

> "Actually I do not see their tactics of narcotics dealers (give for free then hard-cash) ..."

You demonstrate the logical fallacy known as the "appeal to prejudice", a very useful technique in propaganda. It was one of the favorites of Dr. Joseph Goebbels, of Third Reich fame.

(see, I used it just as you did...)


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By mino on 2/16/2007 12:53:53 PM , Rating: 2
By enforceable I meant that it WAS enforced on regular basis by vendors that wanted to do so (local AND importing ones).

Yes, you are right on that. the reason I meant that strong expression as a metaphor and also to counter simmilar tactics used by IP protecting alliances.
You know the simple of labaling someone a pirate (which was until MS used it considered very strong evil-doer role in here) come from the same tactics.

As for goebels, yeah, he used a this speech tactics with perfection. So what ?
You could have mentioned pretty much any politician on this planet on his place. This tactics is common in speeches for millenia.

However I did not intend to use it this way, it was just the first analogy that came to my mind.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 1:06:20 PM , Rating: 2
> "By enforceable I meant that it WAS enforced on regular basis by vendors that wanted to do so "

Vendors cannot enforce laws. Only a law enforcement agency can do that. If Slovakia refuses to enforce copyright laws, Microsoft can do nothing.

> "As for goebels, yeah, he used a this speech tactics with perfection. So what ?"

I mentioned it as a suggestion for you to use logic and reasoning in the debate, as opposed to cheap propaganda tricks.


By mino on 2/16/2007 12:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
I for one do not consider (most) illegal use justified.
Exemptions are i.e. lawful copy vs. DCMA where I would stand on the lawful copy side of the trench.

Most of the time I consider it stupid from the law-breakers themselves. In transitional economy as ours, this led to demise of most our independent software vendors and to vendor lock-in for the user of illegitimate SW.
Hell, even schools were forced to "go legal" with MS as
a) the cost to switch vendor has become astronomic after 10+ yrs illegal use
b) most local alternatives were put off the bussiness by the time MS asked (actually they were polite) to pay for the licences schools use.


By crystal clear on 2/16/2007 11:16:10 AM , Rating: 2
"In the US, the minimum wage is $1030 a month. I'm not seeing a big difference here"

Unquote-
#There is a big difference-the taxation.After taxation the take home pay makes the big difference.

#The Israeli tax structore is complicated & very high.

#The Israeli economy is indeed very wierd-
All prices in reality are dollar linked-whilst wages are NOT.
House rental/purchases are quoted/advertised in USD,even though the transaction is done in Israeli shekels.

#Its unofficially a dual currency economy-the shekel & the USD.

MY real focus is on GOVERMENTS [any/all]-

CUT YOUR TAXES

-Make products affordable,so there less temptation to turn to piracy.

-Just as companies cut prices so should Govt cut TAXES.

This is the core of the problem.

Nobody likes to steal if he/she can BUY IT.


RE: i probem with how international pricing works
By cochy on 2/16/2007 11:34:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
MY real focus is on GOVERMENTS [any/all]-


Oh right. Such a simple solution. There's a reason taxes in Israel are so high. I really don't think they will lower them just so that people can more easily afford imported goods. Even if they did lower taxes there, people might have to spend more on say social services for example, so they aren't really saving anything. You can't just say "lower taxes" and expect everything to be just fine.


By modestninja on 2/17/2007 3:22:06 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the huge military (for their size) that they have to pay for equipment, wages and upkeep.


By crystal clear on 2/17/2007 10:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
The USA looks after that very well.
I do not want to talk about the politics of the region etc.

Goverments(any/all) need good/effective management policy & techniques & equally good MANAGERS.

You the citizen(shareholder) DO THE HIRING & FIRING.


By crystal clear on 2/17/2007 10:18:02 PM , Rating: 2
I view goverments like a service company-

#They have to be cost efficient/productive/restructore & reorganize(if need be).

#Unfortunately they are

Bloated/Inefficient/slugish/wasteful/corrupt(in some cases)
Who finance their spendthrift ways via TAXATION of all forms/types.[and ofcourse you shut up and take it]

#Just as companies provide you products/services at a competetive price so should Goverments provide you services
at a competetive rate(TAXES).

#Criticize/complain about your TAXES(you pay) & not about
PRICES that companies charge/or their PROFITS/or their shareholders DIVIDENDS.

#Just as shareholders vote/appoint/FIRE the board of directors /Auditors/CEO etc
(who in turn hires/appoints/Fires a management team)
The same way Govts should operate as you the citizen(like shareholders)

#Now to your comment-

"There's a reason taxes in Israel are so high"

because they(Govt) are corrupt/inefficient/wasteful/sluggish
(read their news)

"people might have to spend more on say social services for example,"

What social services??
-No wonder you find a plane loads of Israelis flying off to Istambul/Budapest/etc to gamble in Casinos on regular basis.
Not a few but in thousands)
-OR fly off to Bangkok/Goa & elsewhere
[In all the above places HEBREW is heard loud & clear]

""lower taxes" and expect everything to be just fine."

YES indeed-more money in your pocket to spend,

you buy more(products/services) for less(money).


Anyway Israel is not in my focus but-
quote:
MY real focus is on GOVERMENTS [any/all]





Israel
By smitty3268 on 2/15/2007 11:43:10 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Israel ranks near the bottom in terms of total losses at $98 million, but is on the priority list because of the IIPA’s dissatisfaction with a copyright bill passed by the Knesset, the Israeli government’s legislative body.

The IIPA finds that the bill draft does not include provisions to protect against circumvention of technological protection measures used to protect digital artistic works and should be rejected by the Knesset.

So basically Israel is on the list because even though they don't pirate stuff very much they're considering a law that would make it legal to create backups of encrypted dvds and music. I'm sure it is still illegal to actually share that though. Behold the power of RIAA/MPAA. I, for one, do not welcome our new overlords.




RE: Israel
By crystal clear on 2/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: Israel
By smitty3268 on 2/16/2007 4:31:36 AM , Rating: 3
I don't think there's any kind of anti-israel conspiracy - actually i think they get quite a few breaks here in the us that other countries don't get. The reason israel is on this list is because they're a relatively rich country and also one that might actually listen to us.


RE: Israel
By crystal clear on 2/16/2007 4:53:48 AM , Rating: 2
"also one that might actually listen to us."

So you punish the guys that are willing to listen to you &
ignore those that openly/blatantly show contempt disregard/disrespect to you/laws.

Just as companies cut prices-countries should cut TAXES.

Russia/China are infact a purely " law & order problem"
Corruption from top to down.


I travel a lot & well versed with Taxation laws-I see for myself what goes on.


RE: Israel
By smitty3268 on 2/16/2007 5:16:03 AM , Rating: 2
Well, we aren't exactly punishing them - they're only put down on a list and told we disapprove of them. It's not like we're about to invade or withhold military aid. I'm sure we'll put out a lot of carrots with probably the warning of a future stick if they don't cooperate, but it's an empty threat. Given their status and location they're simply too important to seriously bother about a little issue like this.


RE: Israel
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/16/2007 5:25:12 AM , Rating: 2
crystal clear:

I generally enjoy your comments, but I think you're way off base here.

Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are on the Priority Watch List, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Kuwait, Lebanon and Pakistan are on the extended watch list.


RE: Israel
By crystal clear on 2/16/2007 7:36:58 AM , Rating: 2
I took up the Israel issue because it comes for special mention in
the report/recommendations.

As for "Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are on the Priority Watch List"

These countries are well known for some of the most cruel punishments given out for various offences-minor to major.
eg. you get " Let the lashings commence"[Saudi Arabia]

{sorry dont sue me for copyright reasons for using your phrase-"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki "}

Law enforcement is not a problem,if there is "Will to do so"

Lebonen is ofcourse like in those John Wayne movies-wild west.

Bangladesh/Pakistan-there you really see poverty.

Kuwait has more foreigners as residents than its own nationals-Again enforcement is no problem there-just the Will is required.
Indonesia-havent been there.


RE: Israel
By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 8:26:40 AM , Rating: 3
> "So basically Israel is on the list because even though they don't pirate stuff very much ..."

Israel is only on the bottom of the loss list due to its low population. If Israel had the population of China, the figure would equate to $21B per year.

> "I, for one, do not welcome our new overlords..."

Bet you still watch their movies, and listen to their songs though.


RE: Israel
By AmbroseAthan on 2/16/2007 9:11:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bet you still watch their movies, and listen to their songs though.


The RIAA/MPAA may be proud greedy parent, but I am pretty sure I am listening to the music because of the artist. As for movies, I am pretty sure I am generally watching them to be entertained by a good script, supported by a good cast/director.

Just because we hate the people on the business/legal side of these organizations, does not mean we are going to hate their artists as well.


RE: Israel
By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 9:18:46 AM , Rating: 2
> "Just because we hate the people on the business/legal side of these organizations, does not mean we are going to hate their artists as well."

And those artists chose to form a business relationship with that label or studio, which in turn chose to enforce its rights of ownership. So what's wrong with that?

Slice it how you like, but its still hypocritical to label these organizations your "new overlords", while you're still greedily lapping up their products. If a person really feel so strongly about it, exert a little self-control and find some other means of entertainment.


RE: Israel
By AmbroseAthan on 2/16/2007 9:37:49 AM , Rating: 2
The RIAA & MPAA are a seperate entity from the artists, studios, labels; they have business relationships in place, but that is unfortunately the only way for most of these artists to be heard. The artists could try and take the independent road, but it is longer and harder road.

While it would be great to blacklist almost the entire music/movie collections the United States produces as a show of "self-control," it is no solution to the problems. People need to speak out and be heard to get something changed. I can still eat, and enjoy, my slice of cake but tell someone to use less sugar in it next time.

DRM-free music would still make money from ITunes or anyone's preferred vendor, and I would still keep buying from ITunes (my only source of music tends to be ITunes or EMusic, etc; I don't have Limewire or etc running). DRM causes problems while providing little, to no, solution of the piracy problem these organizations face.


RE: Israel
By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 9:47:02 AM , Rating: 2
> "The artists could try and take the independent road, but it is longer and harder road."

You prove my point. The artist deals with a studio or label because it provides them a benefit. They're not being victimized. The argument that its ok to steal music because the artist receives only a small share of the revenues is inherently flawed.

Still, some artists do take the independent route. And if you really hate the RIAA so much, you should listen to only those artists. Is a little self-sacrifice so hard to justify your principles?

> "While it would be great to blacklist almost the entire [industry] as a show of "self-control,"...people need to speak out."

You can still "speak out" while not pirating (or even buying) RIAA-label music. In fact, you'll have even more time to do so.

> "I can still eat, and enjoy, my slice of cake but tell someone to use less sugar in it next time."

When you haven't paid for that slice of cake, it becomes a problem. And the response to the RIAA and the MPAA isn't just "asking for a little less sugar". It's more akin to beating with a baseball bat the waitress who served it to you.


RE: Israel
By sviola on 2/16/2007 10:02:37 AM , Rating: 2
Do you work at the music industry? Do you even know how much money a musician does from cd sales?

Well, I can tell you that from the $16.99 cd you buy the artist only gets less than around 50c (when they get any).

And artists don't work with labels because they like it, and yes because in the last 60 years, the labels moved the market in a way that if you don't have an alternative to them.


RE: Israel
By sviola on 2/16/2007 10:15:33 AM , Rating: 2
sorry, mistake in the end

*in a way that you don't have an alternative to them if you want to live well as a musician.


RE: Israel
By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 10:20:45 AM , Rating: 2
> "Well, I can tell you that from the $16.99 cd you buy the artist only gets less than around 50c (when they get any)."

So? They never lose money from an album. Quite often a record label does lose money. The label fronts the studio costs, which can run a few hundred thousand dollars, all the production and distribution costs, the promotion costs, which can run to tens of millions, and quite possibly a huge advance to the artist as well. And if the album doesn't sell well, they lose all that.

The artist has zero risk. Essentially, they trade some of their album profits in exchange for having huge sums spent to promote them and gain them fame. For most bands, that's a very good deal. Which is why the only musicians who ever get stinking rich, did so off the fame and notoriety gained from promotion by a major label.


RE: Israel
By sviola on 2/16/2007 10:30:05 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but usually, the musician must produce at least some material before a label will even think of seeing his material. Also, labels do some really nasty contracts in which they OWN the musicians songs.

So, don't defend them, cause they're no good doers.

Also, I'd like to state, that I do not endorse or do pirating.


RE: Israel
By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 10:35:53 AM , Rating: 2
> "usually, the musician must produce at least some material before a label will even think of seeing his material..."

And a label must produce at least some hit artists, before a musician will even think of seeing that label. See the beautiful parity here?

> " labels do some really nasty contracts in which they OWN the musicians songs."

And yet artists still agree to those contracts. And get stinking rich while doing so. Sometimes they even get stinking rich off an album that the label lost millions on. What does that tell you?


RE: Israel
By sviola on 2/16/2007 10:43:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And yet artists still agree to those contracts. And get stinking rich while doing so. Sometimes they even get stinking rich off an album that the label lost millions on. What does that tell you?


Most people don't have much of a choice in life. There are some software companies that in your legal contract add terms that any software you develop in work or on your free time it while being employed there is owned by that company. And what should someone that is unemployed do? Refuse a job and starve?

You talk llike companies are the most wonderful things in the world and only want the best for the consumers...I'm sorry, but it's the other way around, most companies couldn't care less about consumers and only car about the stockholders.


RE: Israel
By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 10:54:57 AM , Rating: 3
> "Most people don't have much of a choice in life...what should someone that is unemployed do? Refuse a job and starve? "

This is the logical fallacy known as the "appeal to pity". Why not try a little logic instead? There are many musicians doing just fine without an RIAA-member contract. They may never get filthy rich...but they're certainly not starving.

The fact is artists sign those big-label contracts for one reason, and one reason only. They want the chance to be stinking rich and famous. They have a choice...and they freely made it.

> "most companies couldn't care less about consumers and only car about the stockholders."

Of course. In fact, they're legally required to care about their stockholders. The stockholders are, of course, the owners of the business. And they bought those shares with the expectation they'd make money from them.

If you sneer so strongly at the profit motive, I suggest you examine those nations which agreed with your distate. Start with the booming economies and high standards of living in Cuba, North Korea, or one of the former USSR Republics.


RE: Israel
By Dustin25 on 2/16/2007 11:11:15 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with your point there Masher, but I think his point was that the profit motive has been taken to the extreme in the capitalistic system. There doesn't seem to be much of a middle ground.


RE: Israel
By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 11:20:05 AM , Rating: 2
What middle ground would you have? For a CEO to go to his shareholders and say, "well we could have made you $4 a share, but we settled for $2, because we thought it was good enough"?

The US has the strongest, most vibrant economy for the very reason that companies don't do this. They fight and compete, on every product, to the best of their abilities. Those that don't quickly go out of business. That's the whole reason the system works. Because companies don't settle for less.


RE: Israel
By Dustin25 on 2/16/2007 11:31:37 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. But what would the shareholders say if they were told that 2$ of perceived loss went towards building a better relationship with the customers and giving the company a better image. That the $2 of perceived loss went to procuring them customers for the next 50 years whereas the other companies who made the $4 would be out of luck in 10. In my naive opinion it is the riaa's and mpaa's image that is causing so many of today's piracy problems. That and the fact people keep stealing their shite.


RE: Israel
By mino on 2/16/2007 11:46:46 AM , Rating: 2
$2 profit/item may actually result in higner profit as the amount of sold goods makes up for it.
When despite an unlimited supply of copies the price is such that only ~5% of the owners of the product can actually afford it something is wrong -> the price is NOT created by free-market!


RE: Israel
By Dustin25 on 2/16/2007 11:53:10 AM , Rating: 2
That's a good point.


RE: Israel
By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 11:59:57 AM , Rating: 3
> "But what would the shareholders say if they were told that 2$ of perceived loss went towards building a better relationship with the customers..."

If they agreed with that assessment, they'd say "Attaboy!". This happens all the time in the corporate world...there's even an accounting line item for it, under the name of "good will".

But if you're trying to say that people are stealing music simply becaue they dislike the RIAA, you're mistaken. People steal music because they want it. Plain and simple.


RE: Israel
By Dustin25 on 2/16/2007 12:15:25 PM , Rating: 2
Plain and simple to you, but I believe there are many shades of gray to this issue. Yup, people want the media they download. People who might have felt guilty about this see the stand offish, arrogant, and militant attitude the riaa and mpaa have assumed and ultimately feel less guilty. This equals more piracy. It's also a rich vs poor thing. There are many reasons people pirate. The greatest is simply because they want it. But there are also a group who do it to "stick it to the man." Maybe that's just me though. I would love to see the movie and recording industry crumble and be replaced by something more organic. I would love to see an industry that doesn't pump millions into a "Norbit" then blame pirates for its lack of success.


RE: Israel
By rcc on 2/16/2007 4:56:05 PM , Rating: 2
It's only gray until you focus your eyes. It really doesn't matter if they are stealing or pirating because they want it, or because they want to stick it to "the man". It's still illegal.

If these people really wanted to change the system they'd refuse to buy the product, and encourage other people to do so as well. A large splash in a legal manner gives the companies nothing to target except the potential problem of losing customers.

Prices are where they are because it works for the company. If sales drop, they'll drop prices and/or change content/delivery until they find some thing that works, or they close their doors. Then the next gen company will take over.

"We" the consumer can change the world of business. We do this through our buying habits. If we buy something, the company assumes we liked it, or needed it. If it sells enough, it's successful. If not, it has to rethink it's approach.

The problem we are having is with this sense of entitlement that is running rampant thoughout the world, particularly here in the US. This whole, "I am entitled to the music/game/thingy of my choice", and anything that I need to do to get it is justifiable, it's a load of garbage. IMNSHBVE opinion of course.


RE: Israel
By AmbroseAthan on 2/16/2007 1:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
See, your problem is not reading my posts, just assuming things and firing away.

quote:
The argument that its ok to steal music because the artist receives only a small share of the revenues is inherently flawed.

quote:
You can still "speak out" while not pirating (or even buying) RIAA-label music. In fact, you'll have even more time to do so.


Did I state it was okay to steal music? No. I stated DRM is a solution which does not solve piracy, and in turn creates problems for consumers. As I stated above, I purchase my music.

quote:
And if you really hate the RIAA so much, you should listen to only those artists. Is a little self-sacrifice so hard to justify your principles?


Also, I am converting most of your "you"'s in my head to mean the general populice. If you do mean directly to me, then you posts in reply to mine are just inherently wrong about my opinions on any of this, or you seem to be ignoring what I state in previous replies.

quote:
When you haven't paid for that slice of cake, it becomes a problem. And the response to the RIAA and the MPAA isn't just "asking for a little less sugar".


Within the context I used my analogy: I have paid for my cake, and now I had a critiscm for it. Its great that you want it to be a "pirated" piece of cake, but it was paid for, and now there is a problem with what I paid for. I would like it fixed at some point, or to know something is being done to come to a better solution.

quote:
It's more akin to beating with a baseball bat the waitress who served it to you.


Really? Maybe it would be more similiar to not leaving a tip or walking out on the bill. You analogy is just ridiculous.


Define "Modernize"
By Flunk on 2/16/2007 12:06:34 AM , Rating: 4
Not everyone agrees with your definition of "modernize". As far as I can see you're using "modernize" as a synonym for "Americanize". The American government is in the pocket of the copyright companies and is destroying the concept of fair use.

No one should be forced to buy 3 copies of the same movie just to watch it on their phone, TV and Computer. I do not believe in theft of intellectual property, I just believe that the draconian US intellectual property laws are a step backwards.

My name is Joe and I am Canadian

(ok, my name isn't Joe but anythign else would kill the reference)




RE: Define "Modernize"
By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 8:49:30 AM , Rating: 2
> "No one should be forced to buy 3 copies of the same movie ..."

No one is forcing you to buy anything. If you don't like the terms, don't buy the product. And don't pirate it either.

The entire concept of ownership implies control over usage. If I own a car, I decide who gets to use it, and how. If I own a video, I decide who gets to watch it, and how.


RE: Define "Modernize"
By sviola on 2/16/2007 9:57:08 AM , Rating: 2
With you is always 8 or 80. No mid-term.

quote:
The entire concept of ownership implies control over usage. If I own a car, I decide who gets to use it, and how. If I own a video, I decide who gets to watch it, and how.


How does this differs from buying a movie and wanting to use it in a computer, dvd or mp4 player?
If you go into IP, the car IP is owned by the manufacturer. So, according to your view, they can decide for you how you use your car...



RE: Define "Modernize"
By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 10:13:14 AM , Rating: 2
> "So, according to your view, they can decide for you how you use your car..."

Of course they can. As long as they disclose those restrictions before you buy, and you agree to accept them. That's the entire basis of freedom. Party A makes an offer; Party B chooses whether or not to accept it.

In fact, if you've ever leased a car, you've entered in just such a restricted arrangement, where you're not fully free to do whatever you want with that car.

Some people mistakenly think they buy ownership of a song or a movie. What they buy its the right to use a copy of that media. And that right does not come unrestricted. Now you may not like those restrictions...but no one is forcing you to accept them.


RE: Define "Modernize"
By sviola on 2/16/2007 10:38:05 AM , Rating: 2
I have to disagree with you. If I buy a song, I might not own the IP on that song, but I surely own the file on my cd that represents plays that song. SO, if I want to rip it for my personal use in a cd-r (which I usually does so I can play on my car - to prevent my original cds of scratching) or in my mp3 player I should. After all, I paid to have the right to hear that song.
The problem is that if I do this, they treat me as a pirate, which I am not, cause I don't share my music.



RE: Define "Modernize"
By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 10:44:57 AM , Rating: 2
> "If I buy a song, I might not own the IP on that song, but I surely own the file on my cd ..."

You own a CD with a copy of music on it. You don't own a "file" that you can arbitrarily transfer and copy as much as you like. You paid for the right to play that copy...not some future copy you may make, in a totally different format.

Now you may not like that restriction. I don't either. But the fact remains is not up to us. It's up to the owner of that property. Destroy that right, and you damage one of the basic concepts needed for modern civilization itself.



RE: Define "Modernize"
By Dustin25 on 2/16/2007 11:04:38 AM , Rating: 3
"Destroy that right, and you damage one of the basic concepts needed for modern civilization itself."

It has been destroyed. The question is what to do about it. Do you like up a vast majority of the world's citizens? Do you sue/fine and financially cripple them all? There is no argument that piracy is 100% straight up theft. It's just as bad as stealing a ho-ho from your local qwicke mart. But electronic piracy is such a pandemic and so easy. What can possibly be done?


RE: Define "Modernize"
By Dustin25 on 2/16/2007 11:06:18 AM , Rating: 2
*lock* up


RE: Define "Modernize"
By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 11:26:06 AM , Rating: 3
You make a very good point. However, I disagree that the damage is already beyond salvation. Look back at history. In any new frontier, there is a period of lawlessness. Eventually legal enforcement catches up, and order is restored.

CDs and TV shows are heavily pirated as both formats predate the Internet. Movies are less so, and future DRM technologies-- along with legal action against organizations which facilitate piracy (Pirate Bay, anyone?) will solve the problem.

Obviously you'll never prevent all piracy. But you don't have to. You just need to reach the point where the average user isn't willing to spend the time and the risk to do so.


RE: Define "Modernize"
By Dustin25 on 2/16/2007 11:44:19 AM , Rating: 2
You hit the nail on the head. You must stop the facilitators. The ones who do the original hacks, cracks, and back doors. But this raises another problem. The lack of facilitators will not quench the thirst of the billion or so people who download now and in the future. And as we all know, when there is a need there is always someone willing to fill it. What makes piracy so interesting is how widespread it is. There aren't enough lawyers or enough courts on earth to make much of a dent in people's psyche regarding their piracy habits. So the question remains. What can be done about it? Does the mpaa and riaa continue to battle everyone and grow more hated? Do they try to sue everyone and anyone? Or do they change their business model to match the times. Like I said a bit further down, trusted computing will probably make this whole debate pointless in a couple years. I believe that is what the purveyors of drm are holding out for.


RE: Define "Modernize"
By CrasHxxx on 2/16/2007 10:23:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The entire concept of ownership implies control over usage. If I own a car, I decide who gets to use it, and how. If I own a video, I decide who gets to watch it, and how.

Your right about every thing in this statement. If I buy a song, I better god damn well own it. However, the terms that the Media police impose to not subscribe to this philosophy. Since all these DRM schemes prohibit me from doing anything I want with my media, I'd much rather buy a DVD or CD then download a ripped copy that will let me watch it where ever/ when ever /however I want. I buy the DVD/CD because I want to support the artist not the nazi regulatory company they are affiliated with. If I had another option i would take it. So I'm sorry, but because of this I guess I contribute to the piracy.

It's not the artists fault they are affiliated either. It's the only way they can make it big and get their music out there. As well the industry demands it.

It's all a shame but thats ok becuase the only people hurt are the fans, artist, and you and me. You know, the people that are suppost to matter...


RE: Define "Modernize"
By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 11:02:26 AM , Rating: 3
> "If I buy a song, I better god damn well own it. "

Your confusion lies in the fact that you do not buy a song. You buy rights to one copy of a song...a very different thing indeed.

If you buy a song outright, you can indeed "do whatever you want" with it, even to the point of giving away copies to whoever you want. Of course, full rights to a hit song can cost millions of dollars.


RE: Define "Modernize"
By Crusader on 2/16/2007 12:29:43 PM , Rating: 2
No one is FORCED to buy 3 copies. Dont be a dumbass. If its to expensive, DONT BUY IT.


why isn't Sweden on that list?
By leidegre on 2/16/2007 4:49:00 AM , Rating: 2
Swedes are good at this, you should know that we have a well develop IT infrastructure, and many household are connected to the internet through 100Mbit connections. Now tell me that that's not an ideal situation for piracy?

Then again, I buy the good products, and if I can choose a legimate way of obtaining a product, I perfer that. Becuase I wanna support the developer/manufacturer, but in many cases a lot of these products are outside a normal persons price range, so that's where piracy actually makes a point.

The availability of software enables people to get educated. It creates a market for them. Also that's where companies today tend to offer educational licenses. Something piracy has enabled people for years...




RE: why isn't Sweden on that list?
By Lonyo on 2/16/2007 5:41:47 AM , Rating: 4
Yeah but if Swedes don't pirate stuff made in the US, then the International intellectual property alliance doesn't care.
I would assume most Swedes have some level of taste :P


RE: why isn't Sweden on that list?
By Anosh on 2/16/2007 5:45:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The availability of software enables people to get educated. It creates a market for them. Also that's where companies today tend to offer educational licenses. Something piracy has enabled people for years...


I agree totally. Not only does it create a market for them but also an installed user base that can use the product and eventually perhaps buy it or recommend it at work.

As I wrote some paragraphs up about MS OS having the largest base simply because in the past versions it was very easy and comfortable to use a pirated version of the OS:es.

Now Vista is easier to less since people are already used to MS OS and how it works.


RE: why isn't Sweden on that list?
By Anosh on 2/16/2007 5:49:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now Vista is easier to less since people are already used to MS OS and how it works.


Sorry I dunno how that ' less '-word got in there.
I meant to say:

Now Vista is easier to use since people are already used to the MS OS and it works.


RE: why isn't Sweden on that list?
By Pythias on 2/16/2007 10:05:23 AM , Rating: 2
What market exactly is it creating? Why would people pay for software when they could steal it? If anything it discourages people from creating movies/music/software.


RE: why isn't Sweden on that list?
By sviola on 2/16/2007 10:23:45 AM , Rating: 2
No it doesn't. Well, when you pay, you get a lot of things you don't get when you pirate it: support, updates, etc.

BTW, I know a lot of poeple that download stuff and then go and buy the cds or dvd if they enjoyed it.


By Mudvillager on 2/16/2007 7:55:49 AM , Rating: 2
Hm that's weird, because an article in swedish @ www.sweclockers.com says that this report points at Sweden as one of the worst countries.

"De hävdar även att cirka 40 procent av alla irc-, p2p och nyhetsgrupper med piratkopieringsinriktning är baserade i Sverige."
which translates something like this:
They believe that 40 percent of all irc-, p2p and newsgroups with a piracy direction is based in Sweden.

That's quite a lot considering only about ~0.00128 percent of the worlds population live in Sweden =)


Exactly what Mexico needs...
By modestninja on 2/17/2007 3:39:18 AM , Rating: 2
"The IIPA suggests that Mexico must focus efforts to fight piracy in well-know street markets (San Juan de Dios in Guadalajara) and distribution centers (such as like Tepito in the Federal District) where vast quantities of pirated goods are sold in broad daylight. Other recommendations include: increased resources for enforcement agencies and improved public awareness of the nature and repercussions of rampant piracy; intensified judicial training; stronger border measures; and stopping illegal photocopying by copy shops on or near major university campuses."

They really need to focus their law enforcement efforts on the vitally important area of copyright law... There's hardly any other problems in the country for them to deal with (like corrupt police, one of the higher homicide rates out there, unemployment, poverty...). Wow, Mexico had better get their act together in this very important area and then focus on other less important areas.

Thanks to the RIAA and MPAA for wonderful suggestions.




RE: Exactly what Mexico needs...
By masher2 (blog) on 2/17/2007 11:41:50 AM , Rating: 2
> "They really need to focus their law enforcement efforts on the vitally important area of copyright law... There's hardly any other problems in the country for them to deal with (like corrupt police, one of the higher homicide rates out there, unemployment, poverty..."

Did you ever stop to consider that the unemployment and poverty in Mexico are the result of its stagnant economy? And that in turn is a direct result of an incredibly poor and hostile environment for business and capitalistic endeavors. And that protection of intellectual property is one of the requirements for modern business to flourish?

Consider the US. Manufacturing here has been on the decline for decades. Yet we still have the strongest economy in the world. That's due primarily to our number one export- intellectual property. That IP would never be developed, were it not for an environment which protects it and therefore allows it to be profitable.


RE: Exactly what Mexico needs...
By modestninja on 2/18/2007 12:14:11 PM , Rating: 2
You are sadly mistaken if you think that even a preliminary step to fixing the Mexican economy is to bump up their copyright enforcement. I know you seem to have this huge thing for IP right (which I agree are important) but if Mexico started enforcing their laws in this area (even if they did somehow manage to get passed the police corruption and somehow crack down on these markets), it would have little to no effect on their economy. They have so many other things to fix first, that this would be like spitting into a hurricane.


RE: Exactly what Mexico needs...
By masher2 (blog) on 2/18/2007 12:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
You're espousing the logical fallacy known as the 'false dilemma', similar to claiming we shouldn't prosecute shoplifting as long as there are unsolved murders.

The fact is, Mexico can protect IP and take other steps to repair its economy. Simultaneously. Is protection of IP rights the most important challenge facing Mexico today? No of course not....but taking this step is easy, and it will, in the long run, better the economy, and thus the lives of the average Mexican citizen.


RE: Exactly what Mexico needs...
By modestninja on 2/19/2007 1:45:39 AM , Rating: 2
So stopping the average cop in Mexico from taking a bribe to look the other way would be easy? Pray tell how the all knowing Masher would have this happen?


By masher2 (blog) on 2/19/2007 8:48:47 AM , Rating: 3
> "Pray tell how the all knowing Masher would have this happen? "

With pleasure! You don't rely upon the local police; you simply send FJP officers down to the open-air markets a few times a week, and arrest anyone found selling counterfeit goods.

Does that prevent all sales of counterfeit goods? No, but it disrupts it to the point where the impact becomes negligible.


Booty, ARRR
By 457R4LDR34DKN07 on 2/15/2007 11:49:23 PM , Rating: 5
All those anti-piracy organizations can shove thier findings up thier arses. It would be different if they were protecting the consumers but they are just protecting thier bottom lines. Stop complaining about piracy and improve your products instead of cripling them with DRM and other anti-piracy acts of paranoia.




RE: Booty, ARRR
By msva124 on 2/15/2007 11:57:54 PM , Rating: 2
They only think they're protecting their bottom lines. Adapting an unusually lenient stance toward copy protection (and pointing it out) might actually increase a company's revenue. But piracy "feels" like it's losing money, so let's go after it.


RE: Booty, ARRR
By mino on 2/16/2007 1:20:08 PM , Rating: 2
"Adapting an unusually lenient stance toward copy protection (and pointing it out) might actually increase a company's revenue."
Only in competition-riden markets. Most markets those companies operate in are NOT competition-driven anymore.


RE: Booty, ARRR
By msva124 on 2/21/2007 6:40:54 PM , Rating: 2
Well, unless you count the pirated version as their competition.


Illegal != Bad
By Tyhr on 2/16/2007 4:01:48 PM , Rating: 4
I told a joke once. It was MY joke.

Then the people told MY joke to other people. Thieves !!!
That joke was MY intellectual property.

Software duplication is NOT theft. It's something - and not always legal - but it's not theft.

If you think they're one and the same, then:
Everytime you refuse to donate to a starving person asking for money - you might as well be charged as an accomplice to their hunger, and eventually their death. Murderer!

Duplicating software is illegal .
Duplicating software isn't always bad .
Companies do not lose money from illegal software duplication if you never intend to buy their software in the first place.

Charging high/obscene prices for software is legal .
Charging high/obscene prices for software is bad .
Ever see Robin Hood ? Not everyone lives in that castle or was born into royalty. There's a reason why this story exists.




RE: Illegal != Bad
By rcc on 2/16/2007 6:29:02 PM , Rating: 2
See, I knew there was at least one of those neo economists out there.



RE: Illegal != Bad
By crystal clear on 2/17/2007 11:10:03 PM , Rating: 2
"Ever see Robin Hood ?"

OF TODAY-YES STEAL IT & THEN SELL IT TO THE POOR.
Thats what goes on in reality..........

"Duplicating software isn't always bad"

only if you dont resell it
(commercial piracy)

Dictionary-
Pirate(COPY) Show phonetics
verb [T]
to illegally copy a computer program, music, a film, etc. and sell it

"Software duplication is NOT theft. It's something "

Dictionary-
theft Show phonetics
noun [C or U]
(the act of) dishonestly taking something which belongs to someone else and keeping it:

"Not everyone lives in that castle or was born into royalty."

Then WORK yourself to PROSPERITY.......


hah
By bcoupland on 2/15/2007 11:18:21 PM , Rating: 5
"Canada has taken no steps toward modernizing its copyright law"

If modernization means that our copyright laws still fairly recognize the rights of consumers and haven't been perverted by the lobbyists of greedy record racketeers then i'm happy that we're on the list.




RE: hah
By CrasHxxx on 2/16/2007 10:52:49 AM , Rating: 2
Three cheers to that. God bless Canada.


If you can't beat them...
By Justin Case on 2/15/2007 11:34:39 PM , Rating: 5
Well, with all those countries on the list (I'm betting India has high piracy levels, too), doesn't that mean that piracy is actually the norm, for most of the world's population? So shouldn't we be saying that places like the USA and Europe are the ones "plagued" by copyright and DRM?

Seriously, now, software piracy is actually the friend of big corporations. If people in China were forced to pay the real price of Windows Vista (which is more then 6 months' salary), they'd all be using OSS instead, and the momentum built there would hurt Microsoft's position in the long run. So they turn a blind eye. MS would rather see 1000 people using pirate copies of Vista than 500 using legal copies and 500 using Linux.




RE: If you can't beat them...
By Anosh on 2/16/2007 5:23:29 AM , Rating: 2
Very good point!

I've thought about it several times the last 5-6 years. Where would Microsoft be if people hadn't used pirated versions of MS OS all the way from 3.11 to XP?

The single most important reason for Microsoft having such a huge base for it's OS is not how great the OS:es have been but rather how easily they were to get for free.


the biggest joke
By Merglet on 2/16/2007 9:33:40 AM , Rating: 3
This entire thing is a joke. The "International Intellectual Property Alliance" isn't "international" at all. All of the members are American companies and the entire group is American based. They should change their name to the "AIPA". I'm not endorsing piracy, but I can hardly be sided with a group that calls itself "international" when all of the members have a national interest, and just want to set policy for the rest of the world.




RE: the biggest joke
By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 9:37:54 AM , Rating: 2
You're reading the name wrong. It's an alliance to protect international intellectual property, not an international alliance to protect intellectual property.

And they're really not interesting in "setting policy". They simply want people to stop stealing their products.


RE: the biggest joke
By Justin Case on 2/16/2007 4:11:47 PM , Rating: 2
Copyright infringement isn't stealing. It's that kind of false logic that makes everyone (even people whose income depends on intellectual propery rights) hate the RIAA, MPAA and "friends".

If you break into a shop and take a CD, you're stealing.

If you copy a friend's CD that you would otherwise have bought, then you're at most limiting the publisher's / retailer's / author's profits.

If you copy a CD that you had absolutely no intention or possibility of buying, then you're not even doing that. It might be unfair for the people who did buy it (if you're competing with them), but objectively it makes no difference to the publisher (it might actually help them control a market - see the case of Microsoft).

The real problem with piracy is organizations selling pirate copies as if they were genuine. In other words, counterfeiting.

That hurts the original publisher directly (because the people who buy the pirate copy would have bought a real one - in fact, that's what they thought they were buying), and it hurts the end users (that pay a lot of money for a product that is unauthorized and therefore unsupported).


When they say...
By MrDiSante on 2/15/2007 11:17:54 PM , Rating: 5
"Canada has taken no steps toward modernizing its copyright law to meet the new global minimum standards of the WIPO Internet Treaties," they actually mean that it's still legal for us to rip our CDs into MP3 format, right? Or that we don't have $75 levies on MP3 players? Personally I've nothing at all against the USA (bit of a fan actually), but would the RIAA and the MPAA and their puppets mind keeping their noses out of our business as their names suggests they should? Or better yet they could do everyone a favour and disappear off the face of the Earth.




Canadian Piracy
By Sinbad on 2/16/2007 10:42:45 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The report states that pirates have taken advantage of the gaps in Canadian law


Arr! The only thing me and me lads have taken from Canada, are the women, the rum, and the loot filled coffers. Any landlubber Canadian that says otherwise, will walk the plank and meet Davey Jones! Arrrrrr!




lol
By TheDoc9 on 2/16/2007 11:22:58 AM , Rating: 3
“The unwillingness of the countries identified in our submission to curb high rates of piracy – in most countries, through more effective and deterrent enforcement – saps the U.S. economy of the high-paying jobs and strong growth rates that make this sector critical to the health of the U.S. economy.”

I'm sorry, I stopped reading right there. I think what they meant to say was that "it delays the multi-millionaire executives from becoming billionairs, they have to save up for awhile."




RE: lol
By PWNettle on 2/16/2007 1:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
Not necessarily. The billionaires, executives, etc - they'll get their cash. Even if it means outsourcing high tech jobs. I think that's the point. Those at the top that want their millions will keep the profit margin high and will do whatever they have to do, and if they can't stop revenue loss via pirating or whatever, they'll make up the profits by reducing labor costs. The people that get outsources are laid off are the laborers and workers, not the management and executives.

It probably doesn't matter to you unless you have a high tech job in the US and get tired of watching companies outsource your job.

It's also a double hit on the economy. An outsourced job means someone here in the US is out of a job and not spending money in our economy, and the money is now being paid to someone in another country who's not spending money in our economy. Could be a tripple whammy - you're a high tech company, you outsource to someone in a developing country, who can now afford a computer/iPod/whatever but isn't really affluent, so they pirate or buy cheap pirated software, media, etc. You could be outsourcing and helping piracey. What a deal.

Anyways, piracy arguments get old, because simply put, there is NO excuse for being a thief. So many people try to justify stealing intellectual property, so that they don't have to admit to themselves that they are thieves - but there is no excuse for it.


list of countries
By ProxyOne on 2/19/2007 9:20:16 AM , Rating: 2
Where are all the European countries on this watch list? Where is Germany? Sweden? If you're in the pirating business and speak their language you'd know that's where a big chunk of pirated stuff on the internet come from.

The list of countries are all bootleggers and they will not stop the bootlegging no matter what they do. If you take one step in China you would know how bootlegging works there.




RE: list of countries
By masher2 (blog) on 2/19/2007 10:08:34 AM , Rating: 2
The list isn't driven by the degree of piracy in a nation as much as by the regulatory and enforcement steps (or lack thereof) taken by its government.


The *I*IPA?
By DazzaC on 2/15/2007 11:16:43 PM , Rating: 3
Is it just me, or is the International Intellectual Property Alliance's focus awfully US-centric? I wasn't aware that the USA was the only country in the world that suffered revenue losses from piracy.




The US is on that list right?
By msva124 on 2/15/2007 11:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
It's laughable if we're not on that list.




whos paying these companies?
By Armorize on 2/16/2007 1:52:53 AM , Rating: 2
seriously, bitch about the us economy... theirs 5 reasons in that article that are sapping the high paying jobs... and not helping out the rest of the country...




The Mexican Market
By Sinbad on 2/16/2007 1:55:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
“The sheer dimension of the piracy problem in the Mexican market remains severe.


For every gold doubloon that departs Mexico, that'll be Sinbad's gold! ARRR!
For every gold doubloon bound for Mexico, tha'll be Sinbad's gold! ARRR!
And fer every Spanish galleon in the Gulf:
WE'LL PLUNDER YER BOOTY, YE SALTY PARROTS....SCUPPER THAT!
ARRRRRR!




UGH
By just4U on 2/17/2007 3:50:07 AM , Rating: 2
My mom made a cd for christmas. IT was a slide show with a bunch of family photo's and had a song playing in the back ground. She distributed it to the rest of us ... She's a pirate :(

My sister had a video of her wedding made up that show's her and her husband dancing (to a popular song of the time)She distributed that video to alot of people who asked for it. She's a pirate :( So is the band who didn't legally own the song :(

When I was a kid, I had this cassette tape. I used it 100's of times and I remember racing to the the radio to tape a song I'd been waiting to hear. I filled that tape up so many times I lost count,, to add to that I made duplicates that I gave away.. Im a pirate :(

Even tho none of us realized we were breaking any laws .. we were and need to be punished!! Where do I turn Myself and My family members in!? We need to make ammends to the Record industry and artist's that were hurt by our terrible crimes against them.

I am so ashamed ....

( <chuckle> ok maybe I am not. It has to .. and had to do with the times we live in, There is really not a snowballs chance in hell I am going to tell my mother she broke the law by making the cd she made)

Good thing she doesnt read these forums eh? ... Yes I am
Canadian!







By fliguy84 on 2/17/2007 6:55:58 AM , Rating: 2
I, for one, am really glad that Malaysia isn't in the list anymore. The government have really done a good job in locating these pirating facilities and apprehending the suspected pirates. FYI, Malaysia used to be the biggest pirating hub in Asia, if not the world.





In China...
By yangyoning on 2/16/2007 9:39:31 PM , Rating: 1
Piracy exist to help a lot of poor people. And that's a fact. Though u may say that is robbery or bla bla bla, the fact is, that piracy help us to develop.




Every Pirate should be fined and imprisoned
By Beenthere on 2/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: Every Pirate should be fined and imprisoned
By lufoxe on 2/16/2007 10:11:43 AM , Rating: 2
/rant

quote:
These folks know they are stealing and they should be fined $10,000 per copy and imprisoned for a minimum of one year. Then maybe they'll grow some respect for law and order, but not likely.


To be honest half the problem is by the RIAA:
(see http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=5501&... )
These people are the real thieves. When I legally purchase a song, I believe I can do as I wish as long as I don't distribute/sell it, BUT if I buy a song on itunes or zune marketplace, and I want to listen to it on my MP3 player in my car, I have the RIGHT to convert what I LEGALLY bought. They want you to not have this, heck they want you to buy things multiple times on multiple formats, and pay about $30 for each format. (http://www.riaa.com/news/marketingdata/cost.asp ) (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37... if you don't want to read the marketing crap) There are artists out there that a struggling to make money, while these fat cats are complaining about (comparable to what they make) pennies. Yes pirating is wrong, and there are laws against it. I'm not pro piracy, but I am pro-consumerist, I believe in prosecuting pirates and major illegal distributors; there should NOT be laws that effect the honest person helping the artist by purchasing the artist's music. ./rant


RE: Every Pirate should be fined and imprisoned
By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 10:48:16 AM , Rating: 3
> "I have the RIGHT to convert what I LEGALLY bought."

Why? You didn't buy a song, you bought a copy of a song, in a particular format. If you don't like the restrictions placed by the owner...just don't deal with them. Simple.

> "There are artists out there that a struggling to make money..."

There are hundreds of labels out there struggling to make money. Many of them are losing money on albums...which is something an artist never has to risk. Sure some labels make big money. Some musicians are worth a billion dollars also. What does that prove exactly?


RE: Every Pirate should be fined and imprisoned
By lufoxe on 2/16/2007 11:33:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why? You didn't buy a song, you bought a copy of a song, in a particular format. If you don't like the restrictions placed by the owner...just don't deal with them. Simple.

Are you listening to what you're saying? honestly... b/c if you are right, it's illegal to rip a CD... or how about better yet (something which has been proven to be fair use) to record a CD to a tape to play it on your car. No sir, when you buy a song you have the ability to change formats of it (ex: CD to tape) why should it be any different in a digital sense?

quote:
There are hundreds of labels out there struggling to make money. Many of them are losing money on albums...which is something an artist never has to risk. Sure some labels make big money. Some musicians are worth a billion dollars also. What does that prove exactly?

wow, just wow, it's a good thing you didn't read ANY of the links that were posted. No, they just are given an advance of let's just say $10,000 to make an album a video and to promote. If the song goes well... they are able to pay back the money. But do you honestly think that if it doesn't that there will be no real way to compensate them for that $10,000? that's just naive. try reading some of the links I posted.. evidence is a good thing when looked at. And if that’s not enough, how about something from an artist?
http://mitvma.mit.edu/~mhb/ALBINI.HTML
This was written in 1998 by Steve Albini (producer of Nirvana's Nevermind) and rings true more so today than it did 8 years ago!!


RE: Every Pirate should be fined and imprisoned
By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 12:07:48 PM , Rating: 2
> "you didn't read ANY of the links that were posted..."

Your MIT link goes nowhere. As for the others, you misunderstood (or misrepresented) them. The RIAA doesn't "want you to pay $30" for a CD. They're merely pointing out that, when adjusted for inflation, prices for CDs have dropped sharply the past couple decades.

> "No, they just are given an advance of let's just say $10,000 to make an album a video and to promote"

You forgot the $250,000 in studio and video production costs...along with all the dollars spent by the label itself to promote it. The advance a band gets is (usually) a small fraction of the total spent.

> "do you honestly think that if it doesn't [sell] that there will be no real way to compensate them for that $10,000?

If by "them" you mean the label, then how do you think they'll be compensated for the losses of an album that doesn't sell? They're not...which is why small labels go belly-up all the time, and even the big ones often lose money.


RE: Every Pirate should be fined and imprisoned
By lufoxe on 2/16/2007 12:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
I stand corrected on the site, here's a cache of it
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:KEn5a6v-19EJ:...
It's interesting and brings new insight to the record industry. Try reading it now, and you'll see the number game that they play. (I tested the link this time, it should work)
oh and FYI masher, the 10,000 was just a number I pulled from the air. thus the "let's just say"


RE: Every Pirate should be fined and imprisoned
By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2007 12:52:31 PM , Rating: 2
Well even though you ignored all my points, I still read your link. I already knew everything it claims...and quite a few things it left out.

Do you have any idea how big a risk the average new band is? A few poorly-educated and badly-disciplined kids, with no jobs, no name, and probably a large set of emotional and/or drug problems? These are people that can't even get a car loan for a Civic...and you want a company to invest a few hundred thousand dollars in them, with zero collateral, without even asking them to pay it back if the product doesn't sell?

Fact is, that's exactly the deal new bands get. A huge investment in a total unknown...which sometime even fails to even produce one album. And you're suprised at what the labels want in exchange? If the album doesn't sell, the label loses big...but the band doesn't lose a penny. If it sells moderately well, the label gets their investment back first, along with a decent profit. If it sells spectacularly, then the label and the band both get rich.

If you think that's a "bad deal", explain why bands are fighting tooth and nail for those contracts? And why labels are so cautious about giving them out...and why they so often lose money when they do.


RE: Every Pirate should be fined and imprisoned
By lufoxe on 2/16/2007 2:16:13 PM , Rating: 2
they are fighting cause they want big quick, which is what they offer them, they don't read the contract they don't realize what they are getting into... or
quote:
A few poorly-educated and badly-disciplined kids, with no jobs, no name, and probably a large set of emotional and/or drug problems?
you don't think it's easy to fool some of them. It's a way of giving them their dream. So they take it, they don't see themselves accelerating at anything else, and it's what they're good at. As far as labels being cautious, it's the same reason banks are cautious about loans (be it car or house).

The record labels aren't the good guys that you're making them out to be, then again, they aren't the devils that everyone else is saying. They are a business, as crooked and sneaky and greedy as they may be, they are a business. Unfortunately the business has run it's course and it's time for them to catch up with the times. (getting to the topic at hand) When I buy (as you say) a copy of the song, I can still do what I want with that copy. I did not sign a lease for the song (we aren't talking about subscription based services like yahoo! or Zune MP unlimited, that's a different story and I agree with your point about that) I purchased it with my hard earned money. even as you point out it is a copy... it's MY copy.

As far as
quote:
Well even though you ignored all my points
I did not sir, I went point by point, even quoting you and showing sources for my claims, funny how there hasn't been one link on your end


By masher2 (blog) on 2/17/2007 12:12:30 PM , Rating: 1
> "It's a way of giving them their dream..."

That's just the point. They are being given their dream. They managed to convince some company to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in a risky, no-name group of kids, on the slight chance it may turn a profit. You're still missing the point that the label is bearing all the risk here...and a very large risk it is.

Now, take the example of an established artist...someone who actually has a desireable product to sell. Take Maria Carey, who received a $20 million dollar advance on a $100M contract...then sold so poorly her label paid her $28M to terminate early. Or Whitney Houston, who received a $20 million advance herself, then produced a couple albums that couldn't sell themselves out of a wet paper sack? Or how about the Stone Roses, who signed a $25M contract with Geffen Records, then spent three years to produce one of the biggest bombs in music history...a mistake so costly that it ultimately forced David Geffen out of control of the label?

Just a few examples to prove the point. Established artists with a known product to sell get very favorable terms. New bands are an extremely risk high though...and their contract terms reflect that.


By Sinbad on 2/16/2007 11:50:30 AM , Rating: 2
Yo ho ho!
To the scallywag who suggests the fining and imprisonment of all pirates: Do not venture out into the seas, for you may find my cutlass across your scurvy ridden gut!
And to all of your crew remembers,
DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES!


RE: Every Pirate should be fined and imprisoned
By Dustin25 on 2/16/2007 10:55:44 AM , Rating: 2
Then most people in industrialized countries would be in jail. This includes your friends and family and you too. There is not a person on this board that hasn't broken an EULA consciously or otherwise.

I would like to say that this is a pointless argument because piracy will always be a problem. But I believe that when Trusted Computing goes full swing it will eliminate most if not all electronic piracy. So if you're a pirate, get what you can in the next couple of years.


RE: Every Pirate should be fined and imprisoned
By just4U on 2/17/2007 2:57:17 PM , Rating: 2
I would have to agree that most everyone has broken some EULA at one point or another, including the people who complain about lost revenue due to it. Most of the time ... people are not even aware they have done anything wrong.

It's a side effect to the times we live in and a huge gray area.

Here in Canada we are charged extra for the media & devices used to copy stuff. This supposedly goes into a fund and is given back to those being wronged by those practices.

However,one very harsh reality here is if you try to profit from pirated materials.. you will be prosecuted, and you will go to jail if caught. That is definitely a clearly defined area where you are taking revenue away from those who own what ever is being pirated.





RE: Every Pirate should be fined and imprisoned
By just4U on 2/17/2007 3:35:32 PM , Rating: 2
Also one other thing.. Let's not make the labels some shining knights that bear all the burden in regards to music... champions of their Artists and what have you .. because their not.(masher that comment is for you)

There is a risk involved from all sides. The artist's risk their music, the Labels risk their money, they both risk their time... hoping for at least some moderate success.

Piracy hurts them and it's so rampant its mind boggling. So what do you do? Everyone is guilty of it, most are not even aware they are guilty of it. This includes the artist, the label, the media, & the public. We are all guilty to one degree or another... and probably all hurt and benefit from it as well.





RE: Every Pirate should be fined and imprisoned
By masher2 (blog) on 2/18/2007 10:03:32 AM , Rating: 2
> "There is a risk involved from all sides. The artist's risk their music, the Labels risk their money..."

And if the album succeeds, the artist gets all the fame, glory, and accolades, and the label gets most of the money. Given what each side puts into the venture, that sounds rather fair to me.

> "Piracy hurts them ...So what do you do? Everyone is guilty of it.."

If you're a student, who associates only with other students, I can see why you might think that. Personally, I know quite a few people who don't engage in any sort of copyright violation.


By just4U on 2/18/2007 8:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
I have not been a student for 20 years. I don't mean that people intentionally pirate, just if you read all the fine print then we all DO do it from time to time, and usually without even knowing it. There is ... ALOT of fine print in some of these disclosures after all.

A good example of a Artist doing it... They are at a jam session with a bunch of others, recording a bit at the same time.. using songs that the label owns. Suddenly you have a unsanctioned recording out there circulating the net. It wasn't originally done on purpose but still done.

I am sure exec's at their respective labels also do it as well, burning music from one medium to another to distribute for what ever reason. They don't own that material, the company does (or in other cases the musician does) so They are basically doing the same thing for practical reason's and at times it's without the authorized consent of their employer or the band they are representing. (this is just a theory)

Copy Copy Copy, it's easy it's convenient, and it's a broad spectrum that includes anything that can be stored on your computer... so my statements were not solely in regards to the music industry.


"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki