backtop


Print 78 comment(s) - last by senecarr.. on Jan 11 at 10:59 AM

Do as we say, not as we do...

The U.S. House is currently debating the Stop Online Piracy Act (H.R. 3261), better known as SOPA.  As mentioned in our previous analysis, SOPA has the potential to create devastating harm to internet businesses, as it allows sites to be taken down if any user posts links to infringing content.  

For example, if a site's user policy explicitly forbid posting links to copyrighted material and one rogue user posted such content, the entire business could be effectively killed for however many weeks or days it took to remove the offending links and pass a complaint through the gears of bureaucracy.  The solution appears to be sort of like chopping your leg off to fight an ingrown toenail.

I. All Onboard the Congressional Pirates Train

Now a particularly ironic fact has come to light -- it appears that IP addresses belonging to the offices of members of Congress have been downloading content illegally via BitTorrent.

TorrentFreak used Hurricane Electric's handy list of assigned IP blocks (found here) to track down which IP addresses belong to the offices of members of Congress.  And lo and behold, when those addresses were compared to results on YouHaveDownloaded, a torrent tracking site, they yielded over 800 hits.

Now to put this in context YouHaveDownloaded tracks only a tiny portion of torrent traffic, so it appears that Congress -- even as they look to punish lesser mortals for file sharing -- are themselves gleefully committing a "smash and grab" as Vice President Joe Biden (D) once put it.

Much of the pirated materials appeared to be adult self-help or education books such as "Crucial Conversations- Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High" and "How to Answer Hard Interview Questions And Everything Else You Need to Know to Get the Job You Want".
 
Pirates life
Argh, Congress knows how to pirate, apparently! [Image Source: Reuters]

A fair amount of useful software -- like Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT) Windows 7 Ultimate Edition -- was also pirated.

But other pirated works appeared to be purely stolen for pleasure.  For example one individual within the halls of Congress downloaded a season of Sons of Anarchy, a TV show on News Corp.'s (NWS) FX channel.  Another download appeared to be more "adult" in nature -- "Gangland Cream Pie 21" (we're guessing that's not an educational baking special).

Cream Pie
Some Members of Congress or staffers appear to like the cream pie.  No, not this kind of cream pie. [Image Source: Food Network]

II. Editorial/Analysis: Should we be Surprised that Politicians are Hypocrites?

Is it surprising that the office of Congress are pirating even as they plot to chop the legs off of online business, further crippling the struggling U.S. economy, and raise taxes to further punitive punishments for filesharing that are already grossly disproportionate with offline offenses? Is it surprising that federal politicians or bureaucrats are pirating even as they plan to imprison Americans for streaming sports events, injecting even more Americans into the crowded penal system at a time when America imprisons more of its citizens than any nation in the world?

If Americans wants unbiased political representation -- human beings who truly wish the best for their well being -- why would they allow special interests to pay federal politicians' way into office?  Clearly you're the boss of who pays you, and when it comes to politicians, their boss isn't the American people.

Shepard Fairey says obey
Why question are glorious industry installed leaders? [Image Source: Shepard Fairey]

TorrentFreak should be congratulated though, for their excellent armchair gumshoe work.  They've previously exposed busted torrent traffic coming from IPs at the Department of Homeland Security and the RIAAat Hollywood studios; and at the French President's Palace.  (Has nobody ever heard of Tor?)

Is intellectual property protection important?  Of course.  These government pirates are just as much in the wrong as the members of the public, as they're ultimately stealing work, denying hard working software engineers, actors, musicians, etc. funds.

But at the end of the day that SOPA and its propents aren't engaging in some lofty moral stand, they're just looking to smack down the little guy with punitive punishments, even as the nation's economy lurches and as they or their aids merrily pirate away.

Source: TorrentFreak



Comments     Threshold


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

Why is online piracy so outrageous?
By polishvendetta on 12/29/2011 11:52:45 AM , Rating: 4
I wish the government and IP owners would just be freaking reasonable. If i do a smash and grab at bestbuy and take 5 movies the penalty and fine is less then if i download something.

Retail value +100$ seems fine to me. The government gets their money, the ip owner gets their money, everyone should be happy.

A real solution is a subscription model set up by the studios and not some 3rd party like netflix that has to pay for rights. I'd be willing to spend 10-20$ a month for all media content owned by 1 studio. But I'd want everything and not just what they think would be watched the most.




RE: Why is online piracy so outrageous?
By Dr of crap on 12/29/2011 12:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
That's what we all want is to be able to get the movie, or song, or whatever from the studio, and for a monthly fee - get it you studios, you'd be making money! - be able to get to the content I want.

The problem is they don't get it or would rather not be involved in that end of the process.


RE: Why is online piracy so outrageous?
By Shig on 12/29/2011 2:19:59 PM , Rating: 3
Netflix....

It'll be funny to see where this argument is in 10 years. At the current rate of progression in storage, by 2020 you'll be able to store every song, every tv show, every movie, and every book ever written (with subtitles + meta data) in something that costs a couple thousand dollars. What will they sue you for if they catch you using it? 30 trillion dollars?

@MPAA and RIAA, the pirates won, you're just flushing money down the toilet to lawyers at this point. Well not pirates actually, more like Moore's law won. What will they try next, limiting how big a storage drive you can have?


RE: Why is online piracy so outrageous?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/29/2011 5:04:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It'll be funny to see where this argument is in 10 years. At the current rate of progression in storage, by 2020 you'll be able to store every song, every tv show, every movie, and every book ever written (with subtitles + meta data) in something that costs a couple thousand dollars. What will they sue you for if they catch you using it?


I wish :P

In my experience file sizes for pirated media have doubled and sometimes tripled. Everything out there is high definition (720p or 1080p) ripped from Blu-Ray's or HD DVR's. Hell a lot of the stuff I see out there are 20+ gig Blu-Ray rips. Even audio files are larger as FLAC has mostly replaced MP3 as the pirate format of choice.

I have a paid unlimited Usenet account and these are my observations. As broadband speeds and media definition increase, so do file sizes.


By senecarr on 1/11/2012 10:59:50 AM , Rating: 2
However, file size increases have a much harder practical limit than connection speeds and drive space.
While we might see people trying to sell past it for a while, there is a limit to pixels per inch and colors a human eye can see. FLAC already represents the maximum size of audio (it is lossless, so compression levels while staying lossless can only go up) for the number of channels (yeah, someone out there will try to peddle 20 channel surround, but eventually, there are only so many directions a human can discern sound coming from).
Meanwhile, there are prototypes of things that can already hold 100x current storage space, they just aren't produced at cost effective scale yet. I pay for the second fasted internet speed in my area, 30mbps. There are people in Sweden who get 1gbps for less than I pay because of fiber optic installs available there.


RE: Why is online piracy so outrageous?
By Cr0nJ0b on 12/29/2011 3:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
The hard part about a subscription model is that you have to meet not just the cost of the product, but revenue growth projections. What i mean is this...

In the old days, a studio could make a movie for say $10MM, get about $7MM from Domestic theater sales, and another $5M internationally, and then...on top of that, they would get like $10MM from Video retailers renting it out and from consumers buying the VHS tapes...this is back in the day...Back then, there was no VOD, so you couldn't just hit up netflix to watch fletch again...you had to buy a copy...and then as time went on, the VHS would age and break and you would need replace it. Or you would get a Laser disk or some other media. The revenue stream in these cases was ever increasing over time. But today, the I would argue that no one really collects videos anymore. They can buy them as needed from Apple or whatever. so you don't have that constant revenue growth. The studios only way to get back to the old model is to charge you for every single copy of the material you buy. that way, when you watch Jackass 3 on your ipod, your xbox, on Cable and on your ipad, they can return to the old revenue growth model.

But that was then, and this is now...and the money isn't there anymore. People won't pay for multiple versions...they won't buy an album either if they only like a few songs...and in a few short months, maybe a few years...they won't buy 100 cable channels that they don't watch...they will pay for only what they use...which is less than they pay today. It's bad news for companies that have stock holders that demand ever increasing revenue and profit. Cable Networks will be the next to fall.


By Dr of crap on 12/29/2011 3:39:23 PM , Rating: 3
I disagree on your model.
If I could go unto a movie studio's website, and I had to pay say $1-2 to "watch" a movie each time I wanted to see it, same as renting from Redbox, they have their revenue stream.
And this would suit a vast majority of people.

Why can't they see this is what we the people with the cash want, and why can't they see the revenue generated by this??


Sounds like
By amanojaku on 12/29/2011 11:09:50 AM , Rating: 2
The pirates were interns and/or IT staff. No politician would be interested in downloading Windows (that's what lackeys are for) or self-help books (politicians never admit to faults).

I'll admit, Gangland Creampie sounds like what politicians would be into...




RE: Sounds like
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/29/2011 11:15:12 AM , Rating: 4
Brings new meaning to a Barney Frank Filibuster.


RE: Sounds like
By JasonMick (blog) on 12/29/2011 11:26:13 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Brings new meaning to a Barney Frank Filibuster.

Well at least we know it wasn't Larry Craig... ;) If he were still lurking around Congress, and if it was him, the download would be like "Glory Holes and Bathroom Bums"...


RE: Sounds like
By spread on 12/29/2011 3:09:10 PM , Rating: 1
Larry Craig looks more like a dominatrix with a strapon while he's wearing a diaper sort of fellow.


RE: Sounds like
By chagrinnin on 12/30/2011 2:09:53 AM , Rating: 2
Walgreen's cashier: "Uhm,...no sir,...I don't think we carry a wide-stance diaper."


RE: Sounds like
By Mitch101 on 12/29/2011 12:28:53 PM , Rating: 3
Holy cow your alive? For a moment I thought you might have left DT didnt see anything from you in a while. Hope all is well and you were just on Vacation.


RE: Sounds like
By Natch on 12/30/2011 9:46:38 AM , Rating: 1
Perhaps assisted by (now EX) Congressman WEINER?? ;)

Man, you know the late night comics had a fun time with his name! How could you not??


Not just congress
By TSS on 12/29/2011 1:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
We're all hypocrits. I mean when you really, REALLY look at it, copyright isn't logical, nor reasonable. We've finally moved to a point in history where we can copy certain resources with little to no effort. You all do realise we are typing on replicators from star trek? Atleast the first version of them.

Something that can be copied at no cost has no value. Scarcity is value. Gold has value because we can only pull so much out of the ground, aside from costing alot of effort to get it out of the ground. Anything digital can be copied ad infinitum at a minute cost of electricity and no human effort. Yes the replicators themself still cost effort to make, it's that we can't print out PCB's yet. There will be a time when even that's possible.

And when you really think about it, we are currently compensating people with..... nothing. Paper and ink. Money we belive has value, but it does not. That money is just as easily copied as anything else. Numbers on some computer.

I mean we are limiting virtual copies in favor of real world compensation. And that real world compensation is based on a virtual commodity! Doesn't anybody else see that it's just complete and utter insanity?!? We are already working for nothing yet we demand to be compensated with more nothing!

At some point we will have to accept this. Maybe as a first step, switch the money system from a "high score" system to a "rank" system. How it is now is just like gold in WoW. You can do stuff to gain more, you can trade it in for items and whatnot. But you never lose money if you don't want to spend it. You can litteraly hoard cash, both in wow and the real world. Enough to manipulate the auction house with by buying and selling in volume, creating scacity and oversupply, all in order to make even more money (i know i've leveled 3 blacksmiths off just selling golden rods in vanilla WoW).

If we switch to a ranking system, where the amount of money everybody has decays relative to the total amount of money they have, nobody can hoard cash. People can still get "rich", but unless they actually produce something that keeps compensating for that wealth, they will end up poor. The best example would be current day musicians. Instead of making a few crappy song then munching off royalties, unless they keep producing music, they will lose their elevated standard of living. Patent trolls will have to produce, or be left with a worthless patent etc. The bottom of the society though be a fixed income of points which'll allow you to live a comfertable life.

For all our speedy advancements in technology, societal changes move incredibly slow. I doubt i'll ever see something like the above in my lifetime. But we will have to accept it, sooner, or later.




RE: Not just congress
By Scrogneugneu on 12/29/2011 5:20:33 PM , Rating: 2
So your argument, basically, is that we shouldn't ever get to retirement and instead continue to work our asses off as long as we need compensation to live, and when we finally can't go on any longer, we just... quit?


RE: Not just congress
By RealTheXev on 12/29/2011 8:22:59 PM , Rating: 4
Sir, this is the dumbest thing I have ever read.

Our cash is already worth less then the day before. Hoarding it doesn't do any good already.

The real solution is make money worth something again, but... apparently ending the Federal Reserve is some kinda insane idea! It's not like its misleading name implies that it is part of the Federal govt (it isn't).

Money was recreated the way it is now so these same companies could make more of it! Your idea was already implemented in a much keener and invisible way. So invisible in fact, that inflation is simply accepted as a FACT that no one can do anything about!

Then again, the idea of ending the Department of Education is also seen as extreme, even though it would give states back the power it lost upon its founding.. hence giving states the flexibility to fix their own education problems.

Yeah... yeah.. the way we currently do things makes lots of sense.


RE: Not just congress
By Fritzr on 12/29/2011 9:07:13 PM , Rating: 1
Not only does 'wealth' decay. The decay is "sound monetary policy".

High inflation: Bad ... hoarded money decays quickly. Loans are often cheaper than cash (effective interest rate is loan rate minus inflation)
Medium inflation: Good ... hoarded money decays faster than ordinary interest bearing savings can regen but financial experts can earn faster than inflation
Low inflation: Bad ... hoarded money decays very slowly. Ordinary savings allows you to get ahead ... people stop spending.
stagnation: Very Bad ... hoarded money does not decay ... interest bearing accounts are profitable, loans are much more expensive than saving ... people use savings instead of borrowing.
deflation: Very Very Bad ... hoarded money grows in value ... loans cost their rate+the deflation rate pushing cost of borrowing through the roof ... people stop spending and put as much as they can in savings to watch it grow in real value.

Our economy is measured by dollars spent. If people don't spend money on goods and services, the the people who earn their income from providing those goods and services see a loss of income.

This is why the financial analyst talking heads get scared whenever inflation gets to a low value. They are seeing the death of the economy that they milk a living from.


lol
By Spikesoldier on 12/29/2011 11:11:28 AM , Rating: 5
im sure congress is keen enough to write in the 50000 page bill a section that conveniently omits themselves, and puts themselves above the law so they couldnt be put in the klink for being fascist elitist shits with stink lines of hypocrisy.




Lets make a Stance
By xline2001 on 12/29/2011 11:39:26 AM , Rating: 5
Please sign the petition at the whitehouse.gov site and lets take SOPA to the ground.

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition...




damn politicians
By muhahaaha on 12/29/2011 12:24:29 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for posting this article. People need to know the double standards going on with these politicians. They want to make all the rules, but they are at the same time breaking them, and don't care. I hate what this country is becoming. Nanny/Police country. People are too lazy to get off the couch and tell their congressmen to stop the insanity.




Why not !?!
By JoJoman88 on 12/29/2011 1:26:10 PM , Rating: 2
They are taking money from groups that pirate material themselves. They steal ideas for movies and music, yet expecting protection for things they steal is just beyond me.




Hypocrisy
By Raiders12 on 12/30/2011 5:25:50 PM , Rating: 2
IDIOTS AT WORK. 'Nuff said.
Oh and go ahead and release their names, I mean pornography being so immoral in many politicians minds, and gambling. Transparency?




Could it be...
By Motoman on 12/30/2011 12:25:35 PM , Rating: 1
...that the Congresscritters have themselves discovered that piracy does not, in fact, "cost" content producers anything?

Have they realized that the stuff they're downloading they would have never paid for anyway? Have they realized that if said stuff wasn't available in a pirated format, they'd simply have gone without, or used something else? Have they realized that every single claim of "$X lost to piracy" that comes out is a complete and utter fabrication without any basis in reality at all?

Of course they have. That's why they're doing it. But on the other hand, because lobbying isn't illegal, they have to kowtow to their paymasters - Big Content. No one in Congress works for the people. Unless the people have a lobbyist. content producers anything?

Have they realized that the stuff they're downloading they would have never paid for anyway? Have they realized that if said stuff wasn't available in a pirated format, they'd simply have gone without, or used something else? Have they realized that every single claim of




Stop talking about piracy
By Ilfirin on 12/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: Stop talking about piracy
By JasonMick (blog) on 12/29/2011 11:47:43 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I absolutely hate every article I read about SOPA that tried to turn it into an argument for our 'right to pirate'. If you make the argument about that then the legislation is going to pass and we're all going to lose.

We're not fighting for our right to pirate (I, for one, don't pirate anything and don't find any need to - most stuff out there is useless crap whether you pay for it or not) we're fighting for the US to not effectively pull the next HP by kicking all the internet businesses out of the country - you know, throwing in the towel at the only thing we're good at.

I don't think my article was saying that. Did you bother reading where I explicitly stated that I thought piracy was wrong and should be punishable, but that the proposed punishment was both punitive and economically destructive to innocent parties?


RE: Stop talking about piracy
By Fritzr on 12/29/2011 9:34:44 PM , Rating: 2
Jason, earlier in these comments I posted a link to a law dictionary published 1856 that clearly defines illegal sharing of copyrighted material in a manner that clearly includes internet enabled piracy :D

The lawyers who wrote that definition were very forward thinking :P

You might want to add the legal definition to your list of response quotes for those idiots who think illegal file sharing isn't illegal.


How you say it...
By EricMartello on 12/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: How you say it...
By frozentundra123456 on 12/29/2011 5:58:57 PM , Rating: 4
You may be technically correct regarding the definition of the word. But "file sharing" is not the innocent activity that you imply it to be. Downloading material that you did not pay for still deprives the producer (musician, music studio, game studio, etc.) of revenue that they would have had if one had purchased the material. To me, although it may not fulful the definition of "piracy", it still has the same effect. It is just that you did not resell the item.

And it hurts not only the big companies but legitimate users who pay for the material. Do you know how sick I am of studios saying how they do not want to make PC games anymore because many more copies are "file shared" than are sold.

I am not defending the SOPA act. I think it is a disaster. But defending "file sharing" simply because you do not resell the item you "shared" seems to be rationalization of something illegal.


RE: How you say it...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/29/2011 6:16:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Downloading material that you did not pay for still deprives the producer (musician, music studio, game studio, etc.) of revenue that they would have had if one had purchased the material.


No it doesn't. The person who first ripped the media and uploaded it is doing that.


RE: How you say it...
By frozentundra123456 on 12/29/2011 7:14:05 PM , Rating: 3
no, the first person is the one who makes it possible for the others to download it without paying for it. The distributor is deprived of revenue at every step.

To spell it out: "A" obtains a digital item and posts it on a torrent. "B" obtains the item from the torrent. "B"
did not pay the distributor for the item he obtained. Therefore "B" deprived the distributor of the money he would have recieved if "B" had purchsed the item.


RE: How you say it...
By Fritzr on 12/29/2011 9:40:06 PM , Rating: 3
A is the pirate
quote:
PIRACY, torts. By piracy is understood the plagiarisms of a book, engraving or other work, for which a copyright has been taken out. 2. When a piracy has been made of such a work, an injunction will be granted. 5 Ves. 709; 4 Ves. 681; 12 Ves. 270. Vide copyright. PIRATE. A sea robber, who, to enrich himself by subtlety or open force, setteth upon merchants and others trading by sea, despoiling them of their loading, and sometimes bereaving them of life and, sinking their ships; Ridley's View of the Civ. and Ecc. Law, part 2, c. 1, s. 8; or more generally one guilty of the crime of piracy. Merl. Repert. h. t. See, for the etymology of this word, Bac. Ab. Piracy


A makes the copy and offers it as a torrent. B plagiarises the torrent and keeps the resulting copy.

Both are pirates by definition


RE: How you say it...
By foolsgambit11 on 12/31/2011 7:14:27 PM , Rating: 2
Under that definition neither A or B is a pirate - plagiarism requires the plagiarizer to attempt to pass the work off as their own. Since both A and B acknowledge that the work was created by Warner Bros. (or whoever), they wouldn't meet that definition -- unless plagiarism had a different definition a hundred and fifty years ago.

I'm not denying that piracy is the term commonly used for all copyright infringement, nor am I advocating for the OP's position that the receiver of copyrighted work isn't pirating. Just pointing out that your legal definition doesn't match the modern usage. I'm assuming that printing unauthorized copies of a work fell under a different law.


RE: How you say it...
By Fritzr on 1/3/2012 6:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
Check a legal dictionary. You will find that plagiarise is the legal term for copy. That is the action of duplicating something.

The various laws, regulations and rules against using another's work without attribution will have additional restrictions, extensions and definitions for the rule explaining why certain forms of plagiarism are not covered and other things that are not covered by the legal definition are included in the "anti-/pro- plagiarism" law/regulation/rule/standard.

Making an unauthorized copy by any means is piracy by definition. Certain forms of piracy are legal by statute or court decision. Mostly these are the Fair Use exceptions.

P2P file sharing does NOT delete the original when a copy is made. Until that original is transferred to the new owner or deleted, then, unless the owner of the original had permission to allow copying, the downloader was committing an act of piracy.

Legally the uploader is considered a pirate for putting the original on the scanner, turning it on and then inviting the world to come, punch the Start button, and take home their own personal copy.

P2P file sharing is not necessarily piracy. The act of copying copyrighted material without permission by any means (cassette duplicator, VHS duplicator, Xerox copier, Limewire, Napster, microTorrent, BitTorrent, Kodak Instamatic) is piracy. The tools used have legitimate legal uses. These legal uses however do not modify the definition of piracy.

If you really want P2P in general to avoid following Napster into the dustbin of history, you should be defending the legal usage of the method. This tactic is why VHS is still legal after the dust has settled. VCRs are capable of and are used for video piracy. The campaign to promote the right to use one in a legal manner won the piracy battles in the 1970s ...

The Digital Compact Cassette which allowed CD quality recordings and lossless copying briefly scared the recording industry in the mid 90s. Lawsuits were started to ban this technology on piracy grounds, but credit is given to lack of sales for the failure of this format.

CDs were another round. CD-R disks were fought by the recording industry. It was the computer industry and computer users demanding backup media that saved the CD-R from following the digital cassette. The recording indutstry did get some small concessions, such as the royalties collected by several governments for the material the media could be used to store--if the buyer chose to use it that way rather than for personal records, backups and other usages that no royalty payments would be owed to the music industry for...still they are collected because you MIGHT copy that floppy.

Don't defend piracy. Do that and the louder you shout, the stronger your opponent's arguments become. Do defend the right to store files in a distributed manner that guards against loss in the same manner that RAID does. Stress the benefit to legal users and the damage to legal users if the method is banned.


RE: How you say it...
By Taft12 on 12/30/2011 9:35:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The distributor is deprived of revenue at every step.


Of course they are not and you know this is true.

It's been well-documented that almost no illegal copies would be paid for by the downloaders if free versions were not available.

There is no revenue deprivation (media conglomerates sure like quoting losses as if they are though!)


RE: How you say it...
By Motoman on 12/30/2011 12:19:56 PM , Rating: 2
As always this argument is a catastrophic failure.

Essentially NONE of the copies of anything that are pirated would have been paid for if not available in an illicit form.

There is close to $0 actual impact on content producers from this "piracy."

Take Photoshop for example. How many college kids that have downloaded a pirated copy of PS would have shelled out the money to buy it otherwise? Essentially none. They'd do without, or use something else that was free or cheap to begin with.

Any and all claims of $X "lost" to piracy are categorically utter BS.


RE: How you say it...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/30/2011 1:14:28 PM , Rating: 2
It might sound trite or like a bad excuse, but you're pretty much dead on.

I probably have about a thousand pirated DVD's. According to the studios and their lawyers, I owe them for damages from those "stolen" DVD's. But I can tell you there is no way in HELL I would have purchased a thousand DVD's if they weren't otherwise available for download. No way.


RE: How you say it...
By EricMartello on 12/29/2011 9:00:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I am not defending the SOPA act. I think it is a disaster. But defending "file sharing" simply because you do not resell the item you "shared" seems to be rationalization of something illegal.


Ohhh...you drank their kool-aid...

Sharing media is not illegal and the attempts to make it sound like it is are only corporate propaganda machines at work.

The people sharing media have an interest in it. I won't be sharing any bieber songs...or any other pop songs because I don't listen to that crap...but the people who do, will likely be sharing it. Why do people share? Because they enjoy it and want other like-minded people to be able to enjoy it as well.

Also, you cannot prove that you are being "deprived" of a sale. Lack of sales does not constitute stealing; it simply means you have FAILED to provide a value proposition for a POTENTIAL customer. That is not a legal matter; that is a business 101 issue. The company is failing to convert POTENTIAL customers because they fail to provide a value that would warrant a sale.

Thinking you are ENTITLED to a sale does not magically make any "lost" sales some form of theft.

If you wanted to say your content is being stolen, it would mean that another person or company is trying to pass your creative work off as his/her own. THAT would be stealing because you are then being deprived of content that you created.

That all aside, the government is already far more involved in a CIVIL matter than it should be, and attempting to criminalize MEDIA SHARING is simply greedy corporations clawing at what was once a really nice arrangement for them.

Bottom line is this:

Fair Use needs to be expanded to encompass media sharing and block any copyright holder from abusing the legal system to hinder that which comes naturally to social creatures such as humans.

Fair use should include sharing media so long as the one sharing said media is not attempting to profit from it (directly or indirectly; example of indirect profit would be making ad revenue from a website that has "free downloads" of copyrighted works) or pass it along as a work of their own.

People sharing music are not "criminals" and simply calling file sharing "piracy" and deeming it as being illegal doesn't make it so.

There are such things as unjust laws and a lot of the greed-fueled copyright legislature is quite unjust. This leads into a huge problem with America's legal and political systems - the representatives for the people are no longer doing their job. Instead they are representing the interests of their largest campaign contributors.

Any laws passed by people acting in SELF INTEREST are laws that DO NOT need to be and SHOULD NOT be obeyed.


RE: How you say it...
By Fritzr on 12/29/2011 9:43:59 PM , Rating: 2
Sharing media is legal
Sharing media containing material you are licensed to distribute is legal
Sharing media containing illegal copies or copies you are not licensed to distribute is piracy by legal definition.

quote:
PIRACY, torts. By piracy is understood the plagiarisms of a book, engraving or other work, for which a copyright has been taken out. 2. When a piracy has been made of such a work, an injunction will be granted. 5 Ves. 709; 4 Ves. 681; 12 Ves. 270. Vide copyright. PIRATE. A sea robber, who, to enrich himself by subtlety or open force, setteth upon merchants and others trading by sea, despoiling them of their loading, and sometimes bereaving them of life and, sinking their ships; Ridley's View of the Civ. and Ecc. Law, part 2, c. 1, s. 8; or more generally one guilty of the crime of piracy. Merl. Repert. h. t. See, for the etymology of this word, Bac. Ab. Piracy


RE: How you say it...
By EricMartello on 12/29/2011 10:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sharing media containing illegal copies or copies you are not licensed to distribute is piracy by legal definition.


Distribution needs to be clarified as meaning "intent to sell". If you get busted for being in possession of crack "with intent to distribute" it means you planned to sell it, not give it away or simply relay it to someone else.

I never said that there should be zero protections for copyright holders, however people sharing media with other people simply to "spread the love" while not profiting from it directly or indirectly is NOT ILLEGAL.

So no, sharing media is not illegal by any definition.


RE: How you say it...
By Etsp on 12/29/2011 11:58:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Distribution needs to be clarified as meaning "intent to sell".
No. No it doesn't. There's a reason that the intent to distribute charge sticks to drug dealers. They don't have a "I wasn't planning on selling it, I was helping addicts with their habit by giving it away for free." defense.
Sharing licensed media is illegal, as it should be. But the fines for getting caught doing it are outrageous compared to real media piracy.


RE: How you say it...
By EricMartello on 12/30/2011 6:40:21 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
No. No it doesn't. There's a reason that the intent to distribute charge sticks to drug dealers. They don't have a "I wasn't planning on selling it, I was helping addicts with their habit by giving it away for free." defense.


Yes, yes it does...and as far as drugs are concerned, who is the government to say what substances people can choose to inject or ingest? It's really none of their business what people do to themselves.

Sharing media is not piracy AND it is not illegal. It is "frowned upon". The basis for claiming it is illegal is simply evidence of how badly you've been brainwashed by the as5holes who keep reiterating sharing as being equal to piracy.

Before you know it, fritzr will be binging and googling at the same time just to make it seem like he has a clue what he's saying.

quote:
You will note that in the legal definition there is nothing said about distribution.

Plagiarising (legal term for copying a work) is sufficient to be defined as a pirate.


Oh good, I was waiting for you to bust out the dictionary in your attempt to add some substance to your posts...

quote:
A definition of 'distribution' from the Merriam Webster dictionary. You will note that payment is not required. Only the disbursement of the portions being distributed. However distribution is not piracy. It is an added charge that can be used to increase the penalty. As a distinct legal term it seems to only show up in inheritance law where it describes how the estate is given to the inheritors.


Again, SHARING IS NOT PIRACY | PLAGIARISM | THEFT. You need to shut up since you haven't even been able to justify that single point, and it nullifies everything else you've said on this topic.

File sharers do not really distribute so much as they make available for the taking. It's not like someone has a bag of gold, runs around giving people coins, i.e. distributing. More like the coins are in a big pile, accessible to anyone who wants to take some.

That all being said, the dictionary is not the final word on what the 'legal' definition of a word is. Convincing a jury that distributing something means selling something - it's quite doable if the context requires it.


RE: How you say it...
By Etsp on 12/30/2011 10:09:09 AM , Rating: 2
Sharing is not copying. P2P creates a copy of the media to share. Yes, you're allowed to lend your friends a music CD that you paid for. No, you're not allowed to burn a copy of it and give it to them.

I don't really understand why you think that just because it's easy to do, and you don't see the people it hurts, that that makes it moral. I don't understand why anyone who disagrees with you is "brainwashed".


RE: How you say it...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/30/2011 1:25:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sharing is not copying. P2P creates a copy of the media to share. Yes, you're allowed to lend your friends a music CD that you paid for. No, you're not allowed to burn a copy of it and give it to them.


Umm yeah that might have cut it 30 years ago. But there's this thing called the "digital age" that happened. You might want to look it up.

Back when I was a kid and tape recorders were all the rage, we would make recordings of our CD's and pass them around to our friends or whoever wanted to listen to one they didn't own. I guess we were all criminals even then? Come on. What's the difference between that and file sharing fundamentally? None.


RE: How you say it...
By EricMartello on 12/31/2011 8:19:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sharing is not copying. P2P creates a copy of the media to share. Yes, you're allowed to lend your friends a music CD that you paid for. No, you're not allowed to burn a copy of it and give it to them.


Not allowed? Who's going to stop me from doing what people have been doing since there was media to share amongst themselves? It's like I said before, just because a song is shared online and is technically available to anyone on the net; it does not mean that everyone is going to download that song. People who are interested in that genre of music will find it, and they may share it with their friends who may or may not like it as well.

At no point in time is anyone illegally selling the song or other media...and in fact, if the people who were introduced to the music liked it they may purchase a CD from the musician or even attend a concert.

quote:
I don't really understand why you think that just because it's easy to do, and you don't see the people it hurts, that that makes it moral. I don't understand why anyone who disagrees with you is "brainwashed".


Sharing has always been easy to do. The only thing that the internet did was allow people to share with each other globally...it's not a bad thing. You are brainwashed because you have bought into corporate propaganda and "pseudo legal" claims that have no real substance.

File sharing is not theft, is not piracy and IS NOT illegal. Period.

Please, oh please, show me a link to some concrete evidence of people being "hurt" by FILE SHARING. I would love to see this...because even the FBI could not substantiate any claims relating to the claimed "damages". Maybe you'll 1UP the FBI and prove us all wrong...and while you're at it, why don't you go and explore how many companies went from zero to hero thanks to the massive market share they gained by having people share their software. You may have heard of this little old OS called Windows...


RE: How you say it...
By Fritzr on 1/3/2012 7:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please, oh please, show me a link to some concrete evidence of people being "hurt" by FILE SHARING. I would love to see this...because even the FBI could not substantiate any claims relating to the claimed "damages". Maybe you'll 1UP the FBI and prove us all wrong...and while you're at it, why don't you go and explore how many companies went from zero to hero thanks to the massive market share they gained by having people share their software. You may have heard of this little old OS called Windows...

You asked ... I oblige
http://www.mailsend-online.com/blog/?p=93

quote:
(Jim Lawless)Did piracy ever visibly affect your sales?

(Don French) Of course. Whenever it is possible to get free copies of software, people do. I found very little regard for the rights of software companies or programmers among the computer using public. I knew people who were leaders in their community, deans in the church and the like, and who were among the most honest upright citizens you could find anywhere. Yet they had no compunctions about making illegal copies of software. It is extremely rare to find someone who won't copy software if they can. Remember when shareware was really that? You could keep and use the program and were asked to pay for it if you like it, all on the honor system? I have spoken with a number of shareware authors who tried this and never got a dime from the thousands of downloads of their program. In fact, I tried this with Problematic. Thousands of downloads, not a dime of revenue. People won't pay if they don't have to. Almost no exceptions. Some Commodore journalist once told me that French Silk (the assembler) had a huge cult following on the East Coast. I was very surprised to hear that because by that time I had sold very few.

(Jim Lawless)Did you make transitions into computer markets other than the 8-bit Commodore line? ( Apple? Amiga? )

(Don French) No. As I said above, I got tired of the rat race and all the rats I had to deal with and just jumped ship in 1986.

File sharing cost this programmer thousands of dollars in lost sales & lost the user community the programs he might have written if the piracy had not been so widespread.

I suggest you look into the Microsoft attitude towards piracy...I get the impression they don't really appreciate the 'free' advertising that goes with eliminating the need for the enduser to pay the developer. I have heard of Windows...have you heard of WGA
http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/892130

By the way. The system that Don French wrote the assembler for is the best selling computer system in history. The company went under in the early 90s. New software is being written and released in 2011. By your reasoning that means Don shouldn't complain...right?


RE: How you say it...
By Fritzr on 1/4/2012 2:34:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
.and while you're at it, why don't you go and explore how many companies went from zero to hero thanks to the massive market share they gained by having people share their software. You may have heard of this little old OS called Windows...

I think Microsoft may have heard of Windows also. I think you should contact them and let them know they are completely in the wrong for enforcing their rights as a copyright owner.
http://www.dailytech.com/Microsoft+Claims+Top+UK+R...


RE: How you say it...
By Fritzr on 12/30/2011 12:01:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
PIRACY, torts. By piracy is understood the plagiarisms of a book, engraving or other work, for which a copyright has been taken out.

You will note that in the legal definition there is nothing said about distribution.

Plagiarising (legal term for copying a work) is sufficient to be defined as a pirate.

A definition of 'distribution' from the Merriam Webster dictionary. You will note that payment is not required. Only the disbursement of the portions being distributed. However distribution is not piracy. It is an added charge that can be used to increase the penalty. As a distinct legal term it seems to only show up in inheritance law where it describes how the estate is given to the inheritors.
quote:
dis·tri·bu·tion (dstr-byshn)
n.
1. The act of distributing or the condition of being distributed; apportionment.
2. Something distributed; an allotment.
3. The act of dispersing or the condition of being dispersed; diffusion.
4.
a. The geographic occurrence or range of an organism.
b. The geographic occurrence or range of a custom, usage, or other feature.
5. Division into categories; classification.
6. The process of marketing and supplying goods, especially to retailers.
7. A spatial or temporal array of objects or events: the distribution of theaters on Broadway.
8. Law The division of an estate or property among rightful heirs.
9. Statistics A set of numbers and their frequency of occurrence collected from measurements over a statistical population.
10. Mathematics A generalized function used in the study of partial differential equations.


RE: How you say it...
By someguy123 on 12/29/2011 7:15:24 PM , Rating: 5
I don't see why people care about the semantics. When you read internet piracy, the implication is understood. The term originally referred to only sea pillaging. You may as well complain that these people aren't on boats swigging rum.

While I agree that each share isn't necessarily a lost sale, how exactly do you expect people to "prove" that shares would've been sales? Mind reading? The best they could ever hope for is a correlation, which still wouldn't be proof. On the other hand there are people actively distributing and using these files. You claim these corporations evil for focusing on money, yet your only argument for the sharing and downloading is that it doesn't appear hurt their bottom line. Is it really a moral high ground to freely use software/enjoy media that was intended to be purchased?


RE: How you say it...
By Fritzr on 12/29/2011 8:52:02 PM , Rating: 3
Mark Twain in the 1860s was complaining about book pirates publishing his works in Europe without license or payment to the author.

Pirate radio is an unlicensed radio broadcaster transmitting copyrighted material without permission or payment.

Piracy has always meant 'theft'...Either physical or of value. Sea pirates have simply gotten the most press.

File sharing becomes a form of piracy when the work is distributed without permission or payment. That the pirate gains nothing but a lot of thank you notes and a reputation for being generous does not make the pirate innocent of the crime.

Imagine a shoplifter donating everything taken to charity...that's your average file sharing pirate :)


RE: How you say it...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/30/2011 1:29:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Imagine a shoplifter donating everything taken to charity...that's your average file sharing pirate :)


Another terrible analogy. Piracy does NOT fall under theft. It's technically IP infringement. Find ONE case where a file sharer was prosecuted for theft. You won't, it's never happened.

So if you're going to argue about this, have a goddamn clue about the fundamentals behind it. Instead of emotionally based garbage designed to criminalize millions of people by aligning them with shoplifters.


RE: How you say it...
By Fritzr on 1/3/2012 7:04:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Another terrible analogy. Piracy does NOT fall under theft. It's technically IP infringement. Find ONE case where a file sharer was prosecuted for theft. You won't, it's never happened. So if you're going to argue about this, have a goddamn clue about the fundamentals behind it. Instead of emotionally based garbage designed to criminalize millions of people by aligning them with shoplifters.

You are quite correct. When someone is charged with piracy, they are charged under the laws defining piracy.

Theft of trade secrets even though it may involve Xeroxing company documents (piracy) or by posting the scanned documents to Pirate Bay (also treated as piracy) is prosecuted under the laws governing theft of trade secrets.

Neither one is Theft by your definition. In the Theft of Trade Secrets case, the owner of the Trade Secret has lost nothing of value ... only the right to decide who can have the information.

So even though the legal charge is Theft, by your excellent reasoning they should be released with an apology as nothing was stolen ... It was a simple case of piracy.

The next time such a case comes up why don't you drop by the court and use your oratory skills to convince the judge to drop all charges due to the lack of theft of material goods. You will probably be considered a little bit off your rocker, but you are welcome to argue your legal opinion in the arena where it will make a difference :)


RE: How you say it...
By EricMartello on 12/29/2011 9:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't see why people care about the semantics. When you read internet piracy, the implication is understood. The term originally referred to only sea pillaging. You may as well complain that these people aren't on boats swigging rum.


You just showed exactly why semantics matter. You've only heard about it being called piracy when in fact it is not, so you've subliminally accepted that "file sharing = piracy" even if you didn't notice it. Re-read what you wrote from an objective point of view and tell me you don't see the bias in your statements.

quote:
While I agree that each share isn't necessarily a lost sale, how exactly do you expect people to "prove" that shares would've been sales? Mind reading?


This is an idiotic statistic they invented so they could overstate a problem and make false claims about its "damaging" effects. There is no such thing as a lost sale; best case scenario they lost a potential customer.

Losing a potential customer means that potential customer did not see a value in the product/service being offered that justifies the asking price, or warrants a price at all.

What if I were to put price tags on rocks and try to sell them? I doubt anyone is going to buy them...how about I then turn around and start claiming PIRACY because people line their gardens with rocks and stones they found in the woods instead of paying me for mine?

quote:
The best they could ever hope for is a correlation, which still wouldn't be proof. On the other hand there are people actively distributing and using these files. You claim these corporations evil for focusing on money, yet your only argument for the sharing and downloading is that it doesn't appear hurt their bottom line. Is it really a moral high ground to freely use software/enjoy media that was intended to be purchased?


If it can't be proven one way or the other it has no place being brought in front of a legal system for any type of consideration, but I have already stated a reasonable solution in my other post.

Oh and about your last question - it is entirely beneficial to the publisher of software, music, video or whatever to have as many users using the work as possible. This gives them an established base of captive users which can then be marketed to. It also means that your product gains market share and that is a form of power in itself.


RE: How you say it...
By someguy123 on 12/30/2011 6:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
where? I completely agreed that the only means of data would be correlative, which is never proof. i don't see how this equates into "internet piracy is stealing". the only thing I asked was how you would prove such a thing as intangible as intent to purchase.

Also, it may be beneficial, but the developer/producer clearly did not wish for their product to be advertised in such a manner. Isn't it their right to charge and distribute their product the way they intend? The public is only entitled to as much as the producer, which is nothing. If you aren't interested in purchasing, and they aren't interested in giving freely, it's perfectly within both of your rights to watch the product crumble. Like I said, there's no moral superiority here. Nobody should have the power to be big brother, regardless of wealth or status.


RE: How you say it...
By EricMartello on 12/31/2011 8:39:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
where? I completely agreed that the only means of data would be correlative, which is never proof. i don't see how this equates into "internet piracy is stealing". the only thing I asked was how you would prove such a thing as intangible as intent to purchase.


It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove an intent to purchase and I'm not even sure why you're bringing that up. The corporate interests often throw around inflated, unsubstantiated numbers claiming that every download is a lost sale. There is no correlation - it is entirely conjecture and delusion.

quote:
Also, it may be beneficial, but the developer/producer clearly did not wish for their product to be advertised in such a manner. Isn't it their right to charge and distribute their product the way they intend?


Let's say you buy a car, but the manufacturer of the car requires that you pay an additional "convenience fee" to drive it above 40 MPH because that is their wish. Do you think that a manufacturer should have such a "right" and do you think that people would simply abide by it?

This is more of a social issue than anything else. If you make a creative work and put it out in front of the public, you are inevitably going to get people who share it. THAT IS A GOOD THING. If you do not like this, then you should not be in the business of producing creative works.

You are not going to change fundamental human behavior with laws and attempting to do so is a MISUSE of our legal system. The internet was a game-changer for "old media" and these obsolete institutions have been raking in a lot more money than they should have.

Because of the internet they have lost their stranglehold on the media market, and are now forced to either adjust their prices or be phased out. It's not the actual artists who are up-in-arms here, it is the labels...the middlemen.

quote:
The public is only entitled to as much as the producer, which is nothing. If you aren't interested in purchasing, and they aren't interested in giving freely, it's perfectly within both of your rights to watch the product crumble. Like I said, there's no moral superiority here. Nobody should have the power to be big brother, regardless of wealth or status.


A true artist, by virtue or nature, will want their works to be enjoyed by as many people as possible. That is pretty much a common thread. Morality is not even on the table; it's simple human nature. If people like something they're going to share it with other people who may also like it.

This is why I said before that FAIR USE laws need to be improved and expanded to limit copyright claims to provable infringements, such as someone attempting to republish a work under another name FOR PROFIT.


RE: How you say it...
By someguy123 on 1/2/2012 3:16:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is ZERO EVIDENCE to support any claims of financial OR property losses, so the word piracy - which implies THEFT - is wholly inappropriate.


Because you asked for it. How else do you prove losses in such a manner other than proving intent to buy? If a form of media sells 0 units, gets pirated 1000 times, it is still not proof of loss. You're essentially asking for something impossible. When creating media the costs are almost entirely in development rather than in disc. If you were to steal a disc they would also lose relatively little. It doesn't justify the practice.

And as I said, you're stepping on individual rights and playing big brother. "Artists should" "it's the right thing". These are decisions that exist for the creator, not rights to be dictated by sharers. There's really no way to spin this into a positive light. Explicit file sharing can only be justified as being impossible to regulate fairly. They can't regulate, therefore you believe you're entitled. You're essentially being as cutthroat as these money hungry business you seem to despise.


RE: How you say it...
By EricMartello on 1/2/2012 10:09:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because you asked for it. How else do you prove losses in such a manner other than proving intent to buy? If a form of media sells 0 units, gets pirated 1000 times, it is still not proof of loss. You're essentially asking for something impossible.


What you just stated above pretty much sums up the fact that no, the media companies are not losing anything when people choose to share media and therefore cannot claim that shared media is piracy or theft.

quote:
When creating media the costs are almost entirely in development rather than in disc. If you were to steal a disc they would also lose relatively little. It doesn't justify the practice.


Nobody who is SHARING is stealing anything, bro. Please stop talking like they're both the same thing.

a) I bought a disc and made copies for my friends to share it. Not stealing.

b) I went to the store and took the disc without paying for it. Stealing.

c) A friend of mine shared some MP3s online and I downloaded them. Not stealing.

You're failing to understand that simply creating something doesn't entitle you to be able to sell it. I can spend 10 years carving a block of wood into something I think is incredible, but it doesn't ENTITLE me to be able to sell it and profit. Sure, I can try...but there is no valid legal basis that says yes, someone MUST pay me for my carving because I spent so much time on it and I DESERVE something for it.

quote:
And as I said, you're stepping on individual rights and playing big brother. "Artists should" "it's the right thing". These are decisions that exist for the creator, not rights to be dictated by sharers. There's really no way to spin this into a positive light. Explicit file sharing can only be justified as being impossible to regulate fairly. They can't regulate, therefore you believe you're entitled. You're essentially being as cutthroat as these money hungry business you seem to despise.


No, I'm not. You're playing the same failed angle that fritzr did with baseless pseudo-legal claims. You, as the artist, can choose the medium for your art. If you choose digital then you can and should expect people to share it IF THEY LIKE IT. If you want to create something that cannot easily be shared then sculpt a statue or something. Nobody is FORCING the artists or creators to make their works publicly available or even to distribute them. They make that choice themselves.

You haven't spun this negatively; you're just reiterating my original point about news articles such as this one that erroneously referring to "file sharing" as as "piracy" or "theft", and thus brainwashing simple-minded people such as yourself.


RE: How you say it...
By Fritzr on 12/29/2011 9:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is ZERO EVIDENCE to support any claims of financial OR property losses, so the word piracy - which implies THEFT - is wholly inappropriate. So, please stop spreading the MPAA/RIAA propaganda by agreeing that "piracy" is a problem when it is not. Do a search and replace on all of your articles and update the word "piracy" to "file sharing"...because a lot of times it's not what you say, but...

Link: http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_p.htm
Entries that controvert your mistaken belief
Source:
A LAW DICTIONARY
ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION
by John Bouvier
Revised Sixth Edition, 1856
quote:
PIRACY, torts. By piracy is understood the plagiarisms of a book, engraving or other work, for which a copyright has been taken out. 2. When a piracy has been made of such a work, an injunction will be granted. 5 Ves. 709; 4 Ves. 681; 12 Ves. 270. Vide copyright.

PIRATE. A sea robber, who, to enrich himself by subtlety or open force, setteth upon merchants and others trading by sea, despoiling them of their loading, and sometimes bereaving them of life and, sinking their ships; Ridley's View of the Civ. and Ecc. Law, part 2, c. 1, s. 8; or more generally one guilty of the crime of piracy. Merl. Repert. h. t. See, for the etymology of this word, Bac. Ab. Piracy


The legal citation of illegal file sharing being correctly called piracy and the person who commits the act being correctly called a pirate was published in 1856. I'm sure the actual usage is much older.

Please stop spreading FUD. The MAFIAA disinformation campaign can be fought without providing them with the means to say the opposition is ignorant of the law.

Illegal file sharing is...well illegal
P2P file sharing is legal or illegal depending on the material shared. The campaign to end P2P is given a great deal of help by idiots who claim piracy is not a crime.


RE: How you say it...
By EricMartello on 12/29/2011 10:10:43 PM , Rating: 2
What you seem to miss is that these laws were instituted at a time when someone could have copied another author's book to RESELL it as their own FOR A PROFIT.

- If you copied several pages or chapters out of a book and gave it to your friend, THAT IS NOT PIRACY - THAT IS SHARING.

- If you bought the book, but let 20 people read that one book, THAT IS SHARING, NOT PIRACY. If you disagree with this, then all libraries would be guilty of piracy. LOL

- If you bought the book, copied the text and reprinted it then began selling another book with copied text under your own title, THAT IS PIRACY.

Get it yet or are you still unable to separate SHARING from PIRACY?

quote:
The campaign to end P2P is given a great deal of help by idiots who claim piracy is not a crime.


Piracy is a crime; I never disputed that. I am disputing the broad and reckless scope that the term piracy is being applied to.

PIRACY = ILLEGAL
SHARING =/= PIRACY
SHARING =/= ILLEGAL

The laws need to be revised to include SHARING as being protected under FAIR USE.

Don't talk about ignorance of the law when you yourself are ignorant of the basic definition of two different words with very different meanings.


RE: How you say it...
By Fritzr on 12/30/2011 12:49:03 AM , Rating: 4
If you copy a few pages of a book, a clip form a film, a small excerpt or thumbnail print of a photo or artwork those can be but are not necessarily covered by the Fair Use provisions of the law

Copying the entire work without permission is explicitly defined as a crime in copyright law except for the very limited exceptions spelled out in the law

File sharing is not one of the legal exemptions.

If you buy the book and lend you copy to 20 friends you are exercising the rights granted to you when you purchased the book.

If you buy the book and scan it for your own use, then you are exercising one of the Fair Use exemptions

If you buy the book and scan it followed by giving the scanned files to 20 friends then you are legally a pirate and can be charged with distributing pirated materials.

If you buy the book and scan it, followed by selling the scanned files then you are legally a pirate. In addition you can also be charged with distribution of pirated material and sale of pirated material

If you scan a copy of a book that is public domain OR get the copyright owner's permission to share a scan of a copyrighted book THAT is legal file sharing. In court, illegal file sharing is PIRACY as defined by US State and Federal law.

At the time copyright laws were first passed it was recognized that if someone else copied a work without the creator's permission then the creator couldn't ask for a gift, payment, thank you or other compensation. (Note I said nothing about selling, gifting, blind dropping or other form of distribution or compensation to the pirate. Rather the lucky person receiving the copy is not compensating the copyright owner in whatever manner that owner prefers. Again note that compensation and payment are two different things ... look up the Careware Software Distribution model some time :) )

You are being somewhat obtuse
So to spell it out
File sharing is NOT legal AND it is NOT illegal
Sharing materials you have permission to share is legal File Sharing
Sharing materials you do NOT have permission to share is Piracy.

It is not the media, format or intent. It is the act of copying with or without permission that defines the difference between (with permission) sharing copies or (without permission) piracy.

To use the format of your final statements
PIRACY == ILLEGAL
SHARING ==||!= PIRACY
SHARING ==||!= ILLEGAL
SHARING LEGAL COPIES != PIRACY
SHARING LEGAL COPIES == LEGAL
SHARING ILLEGAL COPIES == PIRACY
SHARING ILLEGAL COPIES == ILLEGAL
MAKING ILLEGAL COPIES == ????
That last one needs expansion
Copying a legally owned original for personal use == FAIR USE EXEMPTION
Distributing a Fair Use copy of a legally owned original == PIRACY (by legal definition, except when it is being given with the original and all copies (including the original) will continue to have a single shared owner)
Copying an ILLEGAL original == PIRACY

Now if you can point me to a documented court decision that says copying and distributing copyrighted material without permission is legal, please do so before continuing to spread FUD.

Nowhere does the legal definition of piracy say anything about LEGAL copying and sharing whether by Xerox, Limewire or any other means of making and moving copies. Actually copyright law is very clear as is the definition of pirate. If you have permission to share the files you are legal ... if you do not have permission to share the files you are a pirate ... you can also be a pirate without using File Sharing. (All that is required is copying in a manner not permitted by copyright law ... do that and you are a pirate)

The attacks on File Sharing (legal) are an attempt to try and eliminate one distribution medium.

Folks like you who insist that Pirates who use File Sharing are really good guys and shouldn't be mistaken for those evil sailors who run around say "Aaaarh me Hearties" are not doing the defense any good. In fact you are offering aid and comfort to the enemy.


RE: How you say it...
By EricMartello on 12/30/2011 6:25:32 AM , Rating: 2
Nah bro, I am not being obtuse...and FYI pulling an Obama and repeating yourself over and over again won't make it true.

You fail to understand that the law is written in a way that it can be interpreted, and that usually means the one who can hire better lawyers gets their way.

You have not been able to properly contest anything I've said, yet you make long-winded posts in an effort to...what...obfuscate your ignorance on the topic?

File sharing is not piracy.
File sharing is not illegal.

Cry all you want but it won't change those two facts. I think the people have spoken on this matter, and last time I checked, it is the people who call the shots NOT the government.

Likening file sharing to piracy is no different than likening a public library to being an institution built on plagiarism.

You've also ignored what I stated current laws being flawed due to them being passed out of corporate interests and not the interests of the people in general - hence they are irrelevant as they are born out of corruption.

We do not need copyright reform so much as we need fair use reform.


RE: How you say it...
By frozentundra123456 on 12/30/2011 10:00:39 AM , Rating: 2
Fritzer stated it well. You can "share" something, but you cannot make a copy and give it to someone else. Just like the book example. If you loan someone your book to read, that is not piracy. If you copy the book and give them that copy that is piracy.

"File sharing" as many who defend it here euphemistically call it is not really sharing. It is downloading a copy of a digital item illegally, and re-uploading it for someone else to copy. Whether one thinks that is fair or not is not really the point. It is against the law as the current laws exist.


RE: How you say it...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/30/2011 1:39:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fritzer stated it well. You can "share" something, but you cannot make a copy and give it to someone else.


Fritz is like a punch drunk prize fighter who doesn't realize the fight is already over. Eric wins by TKO, soundly. His logic is undenyable. I find Fritz's use of "well there's a law, so there, nanna nanna I'm right." to be a pathetic cop out he falls back on when he can't debate Eric's intellect.

People have been making copies and sharing things LONG before the Internet. You're essentially calling billions of people criminals for breaking laws trillions of times. When a so called "law" is seeing such widespread cultural rejection, in a country that's supposed to be made up "for the people by the people" , it's time to rethink such laws.

Eric is dead on. People like Fritz and you just accept that file sharing is "illegal" because that's what you've been told. When you actually get into the specifics and look at it logically, as Eric has, you'll see that's on very shaky ground.


RE: How you say it...
By frozentundra123456 on 12/30/2011 2:33:43 PM , Rating: 1
I will stick to my point. Just because people have been doing things for years does not mean it is not against the law. To me pirating a game or movie off the internet is basically the same as walking into a store and stealing the DVD. And the fact that you might not have bought the item is irrelevant. Would you walk up to a cashier in Best Buy and tell him "I am going to take a copy of this game without paying for it, but it is not stealing because I would not have bought it anyway, so the company did not lose any money."? Of course not.


RE: How you say it...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/30/2011 7:24:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To me pirating a game or movie off the internet is basically the same as walking into a store and stealing the DVD.


You're just another misled person. If this was the case, offenders would be charged with theft. There's NEVER been a single case of file sharing being tried as theft. It's IP infringement and NOTHING like shoplifting, which is genuine theft.

quote:
Would you walk up to a cashier in Best Buy and tell him "I am going to take a copy of this game without paying for it, but it is not stealing because I would not have bought it anyway, so the company did not lose any money."? Of course not.


That's idiotic on a variety of levels. I suggest you research the difference between theft and IP infringement and get back to me. Best Buy bought a physical copy of that game from their supplier to resell at a profit. If I steal a copy, they have lost money on several levels. They also have to re-purchase a game to replace the one stolen.

Tell me it's the same thing when someone downloads a game. I would really love to hear you explain that one.


RE: How you say it...
By frozentundra123456 on 12/31/2011 12:16:44 AM , Rating: 3
Obviously it is not the same thing. I was just trying to use an extreme example. However, the end result is the same. You obtained a copy of something of value that you did not pay for. Just because nothing of physical value changes hands when you download a game, that does not mean the game has no value. The value is the time and effort put into desiginging, and programming the game. Is the DVD itself of a game that costs 60.00 worth 60.00? Of course not. The actual DVD may cost only a few cents or a dollar or two. The cost of the physical copy is mainly the cost of desigining and producing the game, not the physical cost of the media.

And you are contradicting yourself when you say stealing from a physical store deprives several people of money while "file sharing" does not. If you download a game from a pirate site instead of Steam, are you not depriving Steam of the revenue they would have received if you had downloaded it from them? And I know what your rationalization will be: I would not have bought the game anyway. But to me that is just an excuse. You are ultimately depriving the publisher and distributor of revenue and being unfair to people who paid for the game. If you follow your reasoning to the logical extreme, there would have to be only one copy of a game ever sold. Just post it on a "file sharing" site and no one else will have to pay for it. Are you saying the publishers would still not have lost money? Or are legitimate customers supposed to subsidize your "file sharing"?


RE: How you say it...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/31/2011 7:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
First of all the entertainment industry all told, is probably the largest and most profitable industry this country has. So let's dismiss the notion that it's being impacted by file sharing. It's clearly not.

Secondly bad poorly contexed examples do no credit to your argument, or the ultimate truth of the matter. The issue here is do we actually own what we purchase? According to you and the RIAA and others, no. We're simply "licensing the use of their IP." Do you know how far down the rabbit hole that goes? Book publishers are starting to view the sale of used books as wrong. I guess it's only a matter of time before that's considered "illegal" too. You'll probably support that as well.

Eric nailed it. You cannot label a download a "lost sale", only the loss of a potential customer. Which is intangible, impossibly to accurately document, and an all around logically bankrupt argument.

Again people like you need to stop using the "thief" argument. It's wrong and it's slander. The content creators themselves don't even prosecute file sharing as theft, because in their eyes you don't own what you purchase to do with as you will. You're simply paying for a license to view their Intellectual Property, under their terms. How can you support such a monstrous proposition? I wish they WOULD try to legally equate file sharing with shoplifting, in that case any lawyer worth his salt would tear that case into oblivion to never been seen again.


RE: How you say it...
By Fritzr on 1/3/2012 7:40:26 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.mailsend-online.com/blog/?p=93
quote:
Did piracy ever visibly affect your sales? Of course. Whenever it is possible to get free copies of software, people do. I found very little regard for the rights of software companies or programmers among the computer using public. I knew people who were leaders in their community, deans in the church and the like, and who were among the most honest upright citizens you could find anywhere. Yet they had no compunctions about making illegal copies of software. It is extremely rare to find someone who won't copy software if they can. Remember when shareware was really that? You could keep and use the program and were asked to pay for it if you like it, all on the honor system? I have spoken with a number of shareware authors who tried this and never got a dime from the thousands of downloads of their program. In fact, I tried this with Problematic. Thousands of downloads, not a dime of revenue. People won't pay if they don't have to. Almost no exceptions. Some Commodore journalist once told me that French Silk (the assembler) had a huge cult following on the East Coast. I was very surprised to hear that because by that time I had sold very few. Did you make transitions into computer markets other than the 8-bit Commodore line? ( Apple? Amiga? ) No. As I said above, I got tired of the rat race and all the rats I had to deal with and just jumped ship in 1986.


Not only are downloads (and other methods of copying) lost sales, they can also be lost artists who will will stop providing the pirates with new material.

Your ability to copy a work does not grant you ownership. Unless the owner grants you permission, you don't have permission to own a copy.

In the case of the disk at Best Buy. Go to the store display with your pocket CD ripper (yes they do exist) and play the CD through one time. Now put the disk back on the shelf undamaged. You have stolen nothing and since you didn't want the disk anyway you would not have purchased it even without being able to use your handy in store ripper... right?

Sorry, but I don't think the judge will accept your fine argument in favor of what has been illegal in the US for more than 200 years.


RE: How you say it...
By foolsgambit11 on 12/31/2011 7:43:06 PM , Rating: 2
Ignore the argument of being deprived of money - these people won't ever buy it.

If you take an unauthorized copy of a work of art, you are depriving the copyright owner of their rights, though. They have the legal right to control the distribution of their intellectual property. Lost money or not, you are at least infringing on their rights. Now, you may not like that they have the right to control the distribution of the movie they paid $10 million to make, but you'll have to either live with it or live with the possible consequences of breaking the law (unlikely though prosecution may be).


RE: How you say it...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/1/2012 1:24:22 AM , Rating: 1
How is it that their "rights" supersede those of the consumer who legally purchased something with their own money? If they want utter control of the "intellectual property" than they shouldn't be selling physical copies of things.

If Toyota said that it was against their intellectual property to let a friend drive your car, because by allowing someone to use your car you were depriving them of a sale, would you think that was a reasonable term of agreement on purchase? You bought a physical object with your own money, they have NO say in how you use it.

The entertainment moguls and content owners have poisoned your mind and a great number of other peoples. This "intellectual property" is a bunch of horseshit that is steamrolling the rights of the people.


RE: How you say it...
By Fritzr on 1/3/2012 7:48:10 PM , Rating: 2
It's called the law of the land.

For a fuller explanation of why your purchase of a DVD at Best Buy or a CD at Safeway or a cassette from an itinerant musician does not grant your the right to freely distribute copies of your recording see these links.

http://www.copyright.gov/
(Particularly the links under the heading Law and Policy)

Of course if you are not a law abiding citizen who wishes to enjoy the comfort of having neighbors and enemies constrained by the laws of the land, feel free to ignore this source :P


RE: How you say it...
By foolsgambit11 on 12/31/2011 7:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
Come on people! Stop talking past each other!

'File sharing' - as commonly understood (meaning making and distributing a copy of a copyrighted work without permission) is currently illegal, and has been for some time. Eric believes it shouldn't be illegal, based on the fact that people have been ignoring the law for years and the fact that the people he associates with find the law onerous and unreasonable. Eric's beliefs don't change Fritz's facts, nor do Fritz's facts change Eric's beliefs.

Eric's argument, however, is fairly short on logic - it's more pathetic, in the sense of pathos versus logos.

quote:
You're essentially calling billions of people criminals for breaking laws trillions of times.
So would you advocate the removal of all traffic laws because people routinely speed, or don't come to a full stop at stop signs? An ineffective law may be better than no law - you must show that, in addition to being ignored by a large class of people, the law is actually detrimental in some way. Please do so.


RE: How you say it...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/1/2012 1:32:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
'File sharing' - as commonly understood (meaning making and distributing a copy of a copyrighted work without permission) is currently illegal


Why do we need "permission" to use something we freaking BOUGHT with our money? If file sharers made a profit, I would agree with you. But we don't need permission to share things we legally purchased. Do you also think used books are illegal? Why not? After all by reselling your books you are depriving the publisher of sales because people would otherwise have to buy a new copy of the book. Correct? By your logic this is WORST than file sharing because the reseller of the book is actually making a profit off someone else's IP. Tell me I'm wrong here. What's the difference?

quote:
So would you advocate the removal of all traffic laws because people routinely speed, or don't come to a full stop at stop signs?


Oh yay, another terrible file sharing analogy. How in the hell is adjusting IP law to reflect technological and societal changes akin to removing ALL traffic laws? Get out of here with that crap. Next you'll be throwing a murder analogy or rape one at me.

You're essentially calling billions of people criminals for doing something that, if the entertainment industry didn't spend billions in lobbying bribes, wouldn't even be viewed as petty theft.


RE: How you say it...
By frozentundra123456 on 1/1/2012 11:51:47 AM , Rating: 2
I give up on trying to convince "file sharers" that they are depriving publishers of sales, even though if you carry the argument to the extreme that only one person bought the item and everyone else "shared" it, the entertainment industry would obviously grid to a halt. Some people only see what they want to see, not matter what arguments are made to the contrary.

I will address the argument that you can do whatever you want because you have purchased the item. There is such a thing as the EULA, which prevents duplication and distribution of the item. You may feel that this is unreasonable, but it is tacitly agreed to when you purchase the item. Just because you buy something, it does not give you unlimited rights to do whatever you want with it. If you purchase a copyrighted item, you are bound by the EULA and existing copyright laws whether you think they are fair or not.


RE: How you say it...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/1/2012 12:42:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I give up on trying to convince "file sharers" that they are depriving publishers of sales, even though if you carry the argument to the extreme that only one person bought the item and everyone else "shared" it, the entertainment industry would obviously grid to a halt.


Making extreme stupid arguments that could NEVER happen might be a reason you're failing to "convince" others. Also pushing the weak position that "something is a law, so it's carved in stone for all time and you're a meanie bad person if you don't agree" doesn't work on people over 12 years old. Just a tip.

quote:
There is such a thing as the EULA


EULA's have a history of not holding up well in courts. They are NOT legally binding in all cases, fyi. Simply put, an EULA is not a legal authority. I've seen EULA's that claim if you buy the product you cannot sue the company. That's patently bullcrap and unconstitutional, and doesn't stand in court. By law you cannot make someone agree to give away a Constitutional right simply by buying something.

The terms "Licensing agreement" are in the EULA. However, again, I soundly reject the notion that we're paying money simply for the "licensed right" to enjoy something. You're trying to convince me that when I purchase something, I don't have ownership of it. How you and millions of others have traded in your integrity and morals for a corporate boondoggle of legalese and profiteering is beyond me. When those "laws" you so revere are literally bought and paid for and practically written by the same people who have the most to gain, I call that corruption.


RE: How you say it...
By frozentundra123456 on 1/2/2012 12:32:46 AM , Rating: 2
So if I buy something legally and feel it is wrong to pirate something, I have lost my integrity? Wow, how do you refute logic like that.


RE: How you say it...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/2/12, Rating: 0
RE: How you say it...
By Fritzr on 1/3/2012 7:59:20 PM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer

Feel free to return when you have something that can be used to show that copyright ownership is illegal.

Until the copyright laws are struck down, illegal filesharing will remain illegal.

The courts have spoken repeatedly over several centuries. Some of the Fair Use exemptions are the result of court orders.

At the end of the day, the only right that is granted by outright purchase of a copyrighted work is personal use. No distribution rights (which are required for file sharing) are granted by sale of a single copy for personal use. Other licenses can be negotiated. Libraries for example use a modified license. Book publishers have a license permitting them to print, distribute and sell.

If you really want to share files. Contact the copyright owner and get permission or contact your Congress Critters and change the law. Until then you can go on hoping that you won't be spending the thousands of dollars you have saved to pay the lawyer to try and convince the judge that you shouldn't be penalized for something as ordinary as breaking the law...after all everyone does it, so it is legal by consensus--right?


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads














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