backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 152 comment(s) - last by monkeyman1140.. on May 30 at 12:00 PM

The empire strikes back; the U.S. government's holds secret plans to kill nonprofit torrent sites and increase user monitoring

The long running saga of litigation against The Pirate Bay has been well publicized and discussed depth at DailyTech. The Pirate Bay was slapped with conspiracy charges by the government of Sweden early this year, at the urging of the IFPI, the parent organization of the RIAA.  Under attack by IFPI lawyers and Swedish authorities, the sardonic pirate bay chaps told the IFPI lawyers to "screw themselves" and countersued for compensation for lost traffic.

Now Wikileaks has obtained a leaked copy of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), a shadowy bill that has been being discussed in Congress behind closed doors.  The new multi-lateral intellectual property measure is being pushed by Republican U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab, who designed much of it.  The ACTA bill is apparently supported by the U.S., the European Commission (well known for its recent fining of Microsoft), Japan, and Switzerland.

The third page, paragraph one contains a clause which is becoming known as the "Pirate Bay-killer".  It would criminalize non-profit facilitation of copyrighted information exchange on the internet.  The Pirate Bay is the largest of several torrent sites that operate on a nonprofit basis and do not provide copyright materials, but provide means to find them.  Critics argue that this is as bad as direct copyright infringement, but advocates point out The Pirate Bay also is used to find legitimate files and that similar accusations could be leveled against Google or virtually any search engine.

The new bill would place the internet under the firm grasp of international law authorities and industry officials.  ISPs operating within the U.S. and the involved nations would be forced to fully disclose consumer information.  Meanwhile, use of internet privacy tools would be greatly restricted and made illegal in many cases.

The plan details additional plans to expand the bills scope into developing nations, convincing them to join.

IP Justice, an international group directed from San Francisco group that fights for a just world intellectual property regime, is among the groups fighting the new measure.  They released a statement saying:

In 2007 a select handful of the wealthiest countries began a treaty-making process to create a new global standard for intellectual property rights enforcement, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). ACTA is spearheaded by the United States, the European Commission, Japan, and Switzerland — those countries with the largest intellectual property industries. Other countries invited to participate in ACTA’s negotiation process are Canada, Australia, Korea, Mexico and New Zealand. Noticeably absent from ACTA’s negotiations are leaders from developing countries who hold national policy priorities that differ from the international intellectual property industry.

After the multi-lateral treaty’s scope and priorities are negotiated by the few countries invited to participate in the early discussions, ACTA’s text will be “locked” and other countries who are later “invited” to sign-on to the pact will not be able to re-negotiate its terms. It is claimed that signing-on to the trade agreement will be "voluntary", but few countries will have the muscle to refuse an “invitation” to join, once the rules have been set by the select few conducting the negotiations.

The US is negotiating ACTA through the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR), an office within the Bush Administration that has concluded more than 10 “free trade” agreements in recent years, all of which require both the US and the other country to increase intellectual property rights enforcement measures beyond the international legal norms in the WTO-TRIPS Agreement.

As of 25 March 2008, no draft text has been published yet to provide the public with substance of the proposed international treaty. A “Discussion Paper on a Possible Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement” was reportedly provided to select lobbyists in the intellectual property industry, but not to public interest organizations concerned with the subject matter of the proposed treaty.

The ACTA push was launched October 23, 2007.  Among its other supporters in Congress, based on Congressional documents are Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA), Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA).

It appears the U.S. government and other member parties plan to push forward a finalized version of the agreement in July 2008 at the G-8 summit.  Clearly this is one of the most significant develops in online law and legislation in recent history.



Comments     Threshold


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

I sense a disturbance in the force...
By killerroach on 5/23/2008 12:24:31 PM , Rating: 5
Critics argue that this is as bad as direct copyright infringement, but advocates point out The Pirate Bay also is used to find legitimate files and that similar accusations could be leveled against Google or virtually any search engine.

We all know it won't actually be taken literally, but the thought of the FBI raiding Google is too amusing to pass up. This provision is a "Pirate Bay killer" and nothing else, sadly.

Welcome to the brave new world of selective enforcement.




RE: I sense a disturbance in the force...
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/23/2008 12:32:49 PM , Rating: 5
If I was a Google employee and the FBI was raiding us I'd grab the important documents and go hide in the maze with the little colored balls. They'd never find you there, underneath all those little balls! Google FTW!


By Bender 123 on 5/23/2008 12:44:46 PM , Rating: 5
Only if after they are caught, the Google Employee says:
"Dantooine...the copyrighted files are on Dantooine..."


By Apocobring on 5/23/2008 12:48:28 PM , Rating: 3
Oh no, they are catching up to me! Quickly, take the circular slide down to the first floor!


RE: I sense a disturbance in the force...
By Samus on 5/23/08, Rating: -1
By ImSpartacus on 5/23/2008 4:28:23 PM , Rating: 5
Hiding in those multicolored balls is not wrong. It's about as right as you can get.


By walk2k on 5/24/2008 3:34:32 PM , Rating: 1
Don't you know, it's ok to steal as long as you are stealing from "greedy mega corporations".


RE: I sense a disturbance in the force...
By JAB on 5/25/2008 6:11:50 AM , Rating: 5
Actualy it is illegal to hold congressonal sessons behind closed doors unless it is on matters of natonal security like impeachment or war.
There are countless laws that support this. This is even more important when it involves limiting freedom of speech in any form. Controlling communication and monitoring everyone is not in the intrests of free speech.
I dont think trying to stopp someone downloading a Sympsons re-run counts as natonal security threat. No the Pirate Bay is not ethical but dont cut off your hand because of a hangnail. It is inconvinent but you really sould remain within the law when fighting illegal activities.

Any time congress or the white house feels the need to do things in private should be a big sign that it is not right. When you are doing somthing good you tell the world.


By phxfreddy on 5/26/2008 7:36:26 PM , Rating: 4
Blaming a search engine, in this case pirate bay, for what they index is like blaming Ceybords four schpelling erors


By Pythias on 5/27/2008 12:14:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure you spend a lot of time under someone else's balls.


By SandmanWN on 5/23/2008 12:50:59 PM , Rating: 2
TPB was just an example. The global recognition of IP has been going on since well before the time of TPB. Its just sensationalist wording used to garner immediate support from a very vocal group of people.


RE: I sense a disturbance in the force...
By oab on 5/23/2008 1:06:44 PM , Rating: 5
If you're Canadian, you can write a letter to[no stamp required]:

Industry Minister Jim Prentice
Prime Minister Stephen Harper

House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Express your displeasure, threaten to vote NDP/Liberal/Bloc next election, use logic (this would kill Google, TPB has international redundant backups of all their servers outside of Sweeden so this wouldn't work, that you don't want to whore the country out to NBC, etc.) Oh, and put your REAL name/address on it, that way you will get a nice form letter back!


RE: I sense a disturbance in the force...
By mmntech on 5/23/2008 1:38:18 PM , Rating: 5
It's definitely time people got outraged by how copyright is being used as an excuse for governments and corportations to further invade your privacy. This is the guilty before proven innocent approach. I'll definitely try and write in if I get some time.


By P4blo on 5/27/2008 6:46:22 AM , Rating: 2
+1 and a gold star to you sir. Exactly the same with Terrorism.


RE: I sense a disturbance in the force...
By onwisconsin on 5/23/2008 2:52:14 PM , Rating: 3
Or you could send some Internet money


RE: I sense a disturbance in the force...
By Bender 123 on 5/23/2008 3:23:19 PM , Rating: 2
It's time for some Chocolate Pain.


RE: I sense a disturbance in the force...
By DASQ on 5/23/2008 4:47:59 PM , Rating: 2
It's called Cherry Chocolate Dr. Pepper.

That stuff is disgusting.


RE: I sense a disturbance in the force...
By jconan on 5/24/2008 4:29:59 AM , Rating: 2
But with the RIAA and MPAA brainwashing people that they do not have legal rights and threatening people with frightening ads people will believe them like Hitler did in Germany. What happened to real issues that need to be dealt with like the environment and giving people real jobs instead of outsourcing? That's more important than ACTA. Until people speak out and get their representatives to do on their behalf instead of special interest groups everyone will be steamrolled by these special interest groups with unfair and biased legislation with no protection for people paid material whether material or intangible.


RE: I sense a disturbance in the force...
By djkrypplephite on 5/24/2008 7:00:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not your buddy, guy.


RE: I sense a disturbance in the force...
By jtemplin on 5/25/2008 10:38:01 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not your guy, friend.


RE: I sense a disturbance in the force...
By stryfe on 5/26/2008 5:35:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not your friend, buddy!


By xphile on 5/27/2008 6:22:08 AM , Rating: 5
Look, just because one guy has no buddies, his friend doesn't want to be a guy, and his buddy isn't looking to make new friends; doesn't mean we have to fight about it right? I mean after all, we're all pals here.


RE: I sense a disturbance in the force...
By NEOCortex on 5/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: I sense a disturbance in the force...
By Crank the Planet on 5/23/2008 4:56:09 PM , Rating: 5
Why are these guys still trying to go after the folks who are d'loading??? Why aren't they focusing their efforts on the people who put this on the net? Because I tell you- and everyone out there will agree- once it's on the net that's it. You would be an idiot of elephantine proportions if you thought otherwise ( I like that paraphrase from ratatouille ;).

The solution? Go after the ones who are making copyrighted material available. That should be the focus. These other sites that "distribute" should be next, but if the site merely tells you where to find it then they haven't done anything illegal. Otherwise you will have to arrest all of the gas station folks that give out directions, you'd have to close down every search engine, and as a matter of fact having a Table of Contents in a source is criminal! If you follow that line of thinking where will it take you? You can't arrest people for giving directions.

These people are focusing on the wrong end of the cat ;p


RE: I sense a disturbance in the force...
By imperator3733 on 5/23/2008 5:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
What you said makes absolutely perfect sense. The people who download copyrighted material do not deserve anywhere near the amount of blame that the people that made it available are to blame.

The order of blame should be:
Distributors --> Mirrors --> Downloaders


RE: I sense a disturbance in the force...
By wordsworm on 5/24/2008 7:44:13 AM , Rating: 3
If people didn't make copyrighted content, there'd be nothing to fight over. So, really, the blame should be:

artists --> Distributors --> Mirrors --> Downloaders


By ebakke on 5/24/2008 12:48:34 PM , Rating: 1
And there'd be much less to listen to, watch, play, install, etc.


By rhuarch on 5/28/2008 6:01:55 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's time we stop referring to them as artists. Artists would be more interested in creating art for it's own sake. What we are seeing today are people "crafting" a "product" in order to make lots of money. Maybe we should make a point of only referring to people who distribute their creations outside the typical IP infrastructure as artists I.E. Radiohead, Trent Reznor, Cory Doctorow (look him up). I say let the government protect copyrights as zealously as they want and then reward real artists for publishing outside the system the government is so hellbent on using to stifle our freedoms.


By murphyslabrat on 5/23/2008 5:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, excellent idea! You get to find them, though.


By elpresidente2075 on 5/23/2008 7:41:18 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Why aren't they focusing their efforts on the people who put this on the net?


That is exactly what they are trying to do. They see TPB as the person who is putting it on the net. What the efforts would be focused at is the people who are uploading to TPB and their trackers.

Unfortunately, due to the nature of bittorrent (not well understood by most government officials) EVERYONE is an uploader, and so everyone is a target of this bill.

Welcome to the new millennium...


RE: I sense a disturbance in the force...
By Noya on 5/23/2008 8:04:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why aren't they focusing their efforts on the people who put this on the net?


Because those are the people that are tough to find. I'm not talking TPB, Mininova, etc. I'm talking about the "scene" release groups that use Usenet and hack and crack and what not. I read an article on how it supposedly works, and BitTorrent users are the last to get the material.


By plonk420 on 5/24/2008 10:27:10 PM , Rating: 2
uhm, no scene groups release to Usenet. Usenet is so bad that even most official releases are re-RARed, making CRC checking impossible.


By Noya on 5/23/2008 8:08:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why aren't they focusing their efforts on the people who put this on the net?


Because those are the people that are tough to find. I'm not talking TPB, Mininova, etc. I'm talking about the "scene" release groups that use Usenet and hack and crack and what not. I read an article on how it supposedly works, and BitTorrent users are the last to get the material.


By walk2k on 5/24/2008 11:53:04 AM , Rating: 2
With p2p the people downloading are usually also uploading.


By Spuke on 5/23/2008 6:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
The only purpose of this agreement is the placate the IP holders. In all reality, it will stop no one.


By Omega215D on 5/23/2008 4:50:39 PM , Rating: 2
quick we've gotta deliver the plans to the Rebellion so they can find the exhaust port on the empires technological terror.


RE: I sense a disturbance in the force...
By Cygni on 5/23/2008 6:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
This bill wont do a damn thing to Pirate Bay, unless its passed in Sweden.


RE: I sense a disturbance in the force...
By Imperor on 5/25/2008 12:05:58 PM , Rating: 2
Eh, Sweden is part of the EU and if the European Commission is behind it that means the EU is in, including Sweden.

Sweden used to be a voice for the downtrodden and for liberty in general, but now we're turning into some facist state since we got a right wing government! (The party that used to call themselves "Liberals" are acctually the worst...) The people behind this bill certainly know this and will want to pass it before Swedens next election in 2010 when we'll get a Social-democrat government again! (The right has NEVER had two consecutive terms in Sweden!)


By Pjotr on 5/26/2008 4:20:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The right has NEVER had two consecutive terms in Sweden!


How old are you? 1976-1982 was two terms of right wing administration in Sweden. Also in the early 1900s there were lots. In the longest run from 1900 to 1920, even though governments were somewhat mixed, the Prime Minister was right wing during those decades.


By fabarati on 5/26/2008 4:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
Don't kid yourself. This is would've happened even if the social democrats had been at the power. S are not the socialists they once were, especially when Göran had power. In fact, many things now coming up had S behind it, either as originator or supporter.

However, this is not about that. This is EU politics, and there is considerable pressure from the european commission about Swedish IP laws (still) being to lax and whatnot.

The demand for decriminalisation of private downloading goes across the political blocks. M and S don't have an official standing in this question.

I do agree about FP though. Good thing that C is turnin into a nice, liberal party, so I have something to vote for next election.


RE: I sense a disturbance in the force...
By walk2k on 5/23/08, Rating: 0
By imperator3733 on 5/23/2008 6:48:16 PM , Rating: 2
Should they still be accountable for this law when the law is meant to take away people's privacy?


By V4d1m on 5/23/2008 10:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
oh no the nazi regime all over again nooooo


RE: I sense a disturbance in the force...
By slickr on 5/24/2008 12:50:14 AM , Rating: 2
WTF, why don't they shut down google, that how i find and download torrents!
Hey all i download torrents and all music, movies, games, episodes, etc... illigaly through google!


By sporr on 5/24/2008 8:47:56 AM , Rating: 2
Google finds those torrents for you because the torrent files are hosted on torrent web sites...

If such torrent web sites did not exist in the first place then... I hope you get the picture.


RE: I sense a disturbance in the force...
By sporr on 5/24/2008 8:16:22 AM , Rating: 3
Yea, google aswell as other large companies earn the US gvmnt a nice wage through taxes.

The Pirate Bay do not. :(


By Imperor on 5/25/2008 12:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
No, the Pirate Bay pays taxes to the Swedish government on the Ad-revenue they collect. Which adds up to quite a bit!

Non profit... hmmm... not entirely true although they don't charge people for downloading, they just get paid by other companies who in turn finance the whole operation so isn't it really the financiers who are the guilty ones?

I don't have a clue who advertises on TPB since I use adblock in firefox and never see a single ad on the net...


By phxfreddy on 5/26/2008 12:41:58 PM , Rating: 2
You think selective enforcement began with this?????.....Listen...any time you have more laws than any single human can know the ONLY reason it can be is for selective enforcement. Why? Because no one knows all the laws then Johnny-Law can raid when / where he likes and leave anyone he wants alone because not a soul knows who is breaking the law. But in reality we all are because there are so many its not possible not to!....

Thus selective enforcement began a very very long time ago. You only are now waking up to it!


Chuckle...
By masher2 (blog) on 5/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Chuckle...
By oab on 5/23/2008 1:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
What about "torrent search engines" like ISOhunt? It's not THEIR fault the vast majority of torrents are for copyright protected material is it? Their spider just crawls all the torrent sites.

Then again, they moved their servers to Canada to get out from under the DMCA ..... they claim that wasn't the reason but ...


RE: Chuckle...
By masher2 (blog) on 5/23/2008 1:19:23 PM , Rating: 1
> " It's not THEIR fault the vast majority of torrents are for copyright protected material is it?"

The sooner people start admitting there's a real problem here, the sooner we can start work on *real* solutions. Stonewalling every proposal that comes down the pike really isn't that helpful.

Stick your heads in the sand forever, and the result is laws like the one above, which may not do much to solve the actual problem, and also carry draconian anti-privacy measures that will do no one any good.


RE: Chuckle...
By DASQ on 5/23/2008 2:36:18 PM , Rating: 5
Admitting there is a problem ISN'T the issue. The RIAA implants it into the public quite well.

How do you properly define the difference between 'knowing' where to get the files, and actually HAVING the said file? Do you arrest people for knowing the URL's of torrent sites?

What DO you suggest is the solution, masher?


RE: Chuckle...
By eyebeeemmpawn on 5/23/2008 2:40:21 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The sooner people start admitting there's a real problem here, the sooner we can start work on *real* solutions.


what's the *real* problem? Media owners are getting slightly degraded profit margins? Does that justify throwing privacy principles on which our nation was founded out the window?

Shoplifting happens in retail stores, yet there isn't an FBI search team inspecting everyone leaving each store.

I'm fine with people being paid for their work, but business needs do not trump our country's ideals.

quote:
Stick your heads in the sand forever, and the result is laws like the one above, which may not do much to solve the actual problem, and also carry draconian anti-privacy measures that will do no one any good.


If you set the price of your goods too high, and then bury your head in the sand, piracy is what happens. Companies love the free market when prices are driven up, but when they try to drive prices up artificially and the market won't bear it they just blame piracy.


RE: Chuckle...
By TheDoc9 on 5/23/2008 3:12:26 PM , Rating: 3
I know, I wonder what this bill covers? TV shows, movies, software? I know that anyone can go online right now and get a fantastic copy of there favorite tv show online that they may have missed without limitations. Where as the next closest competitor is itunes or amazon, both of which have poorer quality lower res versions with drm so you can't view them on anything but your pc or special box. AND you pay $3.00 or more for each ep. Sounds like a difficult choice...

This is where passing a law that benefits only the very rich .001% minority of the population comes into play and everyone involved gets paid.


RE: Chuckle...
By Emily on 5/23/2008 4:38:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Shoplifting happens in retail stores, yet there isn't an FBI search team inspecting everyone leaving each store.

Shoplifting is also less common, presumably because it carries more risks. If the odds of getting caught and prosecuted is even as high as 10%, I suspect that the amount of illegal download would drop by more than 10%. As it is most people view this as an almost 'risk-free' activity.

quote:
If you set the price of your goods too high, and then bury your head in the sand, piracy is what happens.

I will probably get downrated for saying this, but I think that a lot of pirates are simply cheap. Many will go for the lowest cost assuming there are little risks. Pirated goods, by their very nature, will be always be cheaper than the original goods, since there is no development cost involved. Furthermore, piracy the cost ($, time, cost) of piracy has dropped. Duplicating floppy disks, while by no mean a difficult task, took more time/effort/cost than P2P today.

Products like music and games, haven't really increased in price in line with inflation. Development costs most likely haven't decreased. Technology might have made certain aspect of development easier, distribution cheaper etc., but as a whole, modern games take longer to develop than it used to, require a bigger team than it used to, and in the case of PC games, without a significant increase in price tag from 10 years ago. Yet piracy most likely has not decreased.


RE: Chuckle...
By jeff834 on 5/23/2008 6:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
Just a little comment on the prices of music. While it's true that game prices haven't really increased (most games used to be $50 now new games are typically $60, not a huge jump in a 20 year period), pre-mp3 music prices increased enormously in the 90s (new album prices went from less than $10 to over $20). As a matter of fact piracy has had a nice impact on the price of music. The RIAA would have you believe that rampant piracy raises the price of goods for the average consumer, and yet after 99/2000 when the napster explosion happened the prices of CDs dropped from around $20 to around $10-$15. What does that say to you? To me it says prices were artificially above what the demand dictated they should have been. Wonder why that was...


RE: Chuckle...
By Digimonkey on 5/25/2008 12:45:59 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't say it's just about the risk, although no doubt that can be attributed, but I think it's a bigger problem because most people don't see anything wrong with illegally downloading copyrighted material.

Illegally downloading copyrighted material and stealing media off store shelves is really not the same thing. That's just something studios want you to believe. Stealing off store shelves makes that store loose money. If you download something illegally that you never intended to buy, the artist/studio didn't actually loose money because of your actions.

Don't get me wrong. I pay for the music, games, and movies that I have. I believe everyone should be morally obligated to pay the price that is asked for the IP. If you don't want to pay, don't play/listen/watch it. I also agree with your second statement, and I'm against piracy. Especially when pirates make money off of someone else's work.


RE: Chuckle...
By crimson117 on 5/23/2008 2:58:47 PM , Rating: 3
masher, you're assuming that freely trading electronic versions of works of art is actually a problem.

"Copyright" as a concept is a relatively recent invention, and when it was reconsidered in terms of the nascent digital age we got the DMCA (which only industry execs and metallica seem to like).

If we the people vote to give more power to the Copyright concept, then it has more power. If we the people vote to take power away from it, then it has less power.

All these "proposals" you speak of involve maintaining or increasing Copyright's strength, so yes I hope every such proposal is stonewalled. I would only consider a proposal that involves REDUCING Copyright's power, such as extending fair-use rights, and limiting Copyright term length.

You might claim that that would harm the music industry. I argue it would instead transform it from a recording-based industry to a performance-based industry, and I think that would in fact be a positive overall change. The only "harm" done would be to the status quo.


RE: Chuckle...
By masher2 (blog) on 5/23/2008 3:14:57 PM , Rating: 2
> ""Copyright" as a concept is a relatively recent invention,"

The protection of intellectual property also coincides with the birth of the industrial age, and the fastest level of progress man has ever seen. Is anyone truly naive enough to believe that's just a coincidence?

While I agree that copyright lengths are at present exhorbitant, the fact remains that the immense outporing of books, music, and other material today is a direct result is the copyright system, which allows people to base careers around the production of such.

> " I argue it would instead transform it from a recording-based industry to a performance-based industry"

What about songwriters? How do they get paid in a "performance-based" industry? They're the ones creating the actual art; Anyway, focusing on music is the wrong approach; it's just the tip of the iceberg. What about books? Are you seriously suggesting authors would only get paid by those willing to attend public readings of their works?


RE: Chuckle...
By mcnabney on 5/23/2008 3:44:04 PM , Rating: 5
How did Beethoven or Mozart get paid for their works? Not long after their work was penned you could hear it played in some other city. The 'writers' were supported through a variety of means, but that was before our culture decided that you needed a few million dollars just for seeping into the collective consciousness. This has happened to many performers. Do you think NFL and NBA stars always made a fortune? The expectation of instant wealth is a relatively new idea and it has fed and corrupted most of our culture, if you can even call it that anymore.


RE: Chuckle...
By nineball9 on 5/24/2008 6:53:11 AM , Rating: 2
I know less about Beethoven's history than Mozart's, so I can only comment on Mozart.

Much of Mozart's music was commissioned, that is, he was paid to write specific pieces of music. If the music did not become the property of those who commissioned it, it was published by Mozart. Mozart also published his own work. Published work (his music on paper) had to be purchased by other composers, performers, etc.

As a poorly paid concertmaster under two Archbishops, his music likely became the property of the Church or the Archbishop (who could publish the music), though I am not sure about this. Likewise, as court composer under Joseph II, his music probably became the property of the court.

Despite composing 41 operas plus numerous lieder, canons, oratorios, cantatas and notturni, Mozart didn't write any lyrics. They were written by librettists who made their living writing and publishing lyrics. Notturni and lieder were written by poets.

So Mozart "got paid" by commission, performing his own works, and sale of published music. (He had other income as well, e.g. tutoring.)

As for athletes, their work (as athletes) is not intellectual property which is the general theme of this thread's original article. One can not copywrite a "slam dunk" or a "Hail Mary" pass!


RE: Chuckle...
By aos007 on 5/26/2008 6:25:01 PM , Rating: 2
From what I recall, Beethoven was a shrewd businessman, unlike Mozart, and didn't have money problems.


RE: Chuckle...
By MrJim on 5/25/2008 10:54:48 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
How did Beethoven or Mozart get paid for their works? Not long after their work was penned you could hear it played in some other city. The 'writers' were supported through a variety of means, but that was before our culture decided that you needed a few million dollars just for seeping into the collective consciousness. This has happened to many performers. Do you think NFL and NBA stars always made a fortune? The expectation of instant wealth is a relatively new idea and it has fed and corrupted most of our culture, if you can even call it that anymore.


Excellent post. May i just add the fuck up that the commercial medicine is in the world today, HIV medicine? Copying FTW!

Reclaim culture!


RE: Chuckle...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/23/2008 9:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What about songwriters? How do they get paid in a "performance-based" industry?


I don't know. How about not sucking ?


RE: Chuckle...
By MeTaedet on 5/23/2008 4:03:51 PM , Rating: 4
Frankly I don't even see an issue with piracy at all. And if I do, not to such an extent as to be willing to support any legislative measure that would curtail my freedoms or impose draconian punishment.

Let me explain why I do not take issue with piracy, if you'll oblige me:

Imagine for a moment that I had a device by the use of which I could make an exact copy of any physical item, provided I furnished this device with the raw material necessary to produce the copy. Okay, now, let's say I purchased a bicycle from some bicycle manufacturing company, and upon bringing it home and showing it to a friend of mine, my friend expressed an interest in having one just like mine. But before he could go to the shop to purchase one, I stopped him and offered to use my supercalifragilistic magical copying device to produce a copy for him, so that he shouldn't have to forgo any of his hard-earned money to experience the pleasure of owning just such a bike and putting it to use. According to the laity, the great unwashed, the RIAA, the MPAA, and government, I've stolen - or at very least they would say so if the copied item were a song, a movie book or videogame. The word "stealing", however, implies divestiture of something already in someone's possession. The only thing I have actually done is to PREVENT the bicycle manufacturer from obtaining something it otherwise WOULD HAVE obtained. You see, the human mind is disposed to commit many logical fallacies like this, by relying on flawed heuristics and so forth. Because people can easily imagine my friend's money being in the hands of the bicycle manufacturer when he expresses his wish for a bicycle just like mine, they feel that the transaction has already taken place and that it is stealing to make a copy for my friend. But if you look closely, you'll see that this "stealing" underlies all healthy commerce. It's called competition. Intel makes better chips that prevents AMD from making the money they otherwise would have. AMD makes chips that prevent Intel from making the money they otherwise would have. Why is it that if I prevent a record company from making money, I get thrown in jail or receive a fine grossly disproportionate to the "loss" the pertinent company has sustained by my act of "stealing"? If your business model isn't structured in such a way that your business can continue operating in the black under the vicissitudes of life and technology, you ought not to appea to the government to get it to destroy peoples' lives so that you can remain profitable. Adapt or die. It might be sad for a number of people that the music, videogame, and movie industries should fall, but so be it. That's much better than this despotic bullshiat. (In truth, though, I doubt they would go out of business. They'd simply make less money and who can say just how much less. But the purpose of law shouldn't be to maximize profits for any industry business or person, at least IMO.)

Every time you make a copy of music - or any macroscopic object really - you are not making an exact copy. This must mean that record companies don't hold a copyright on an exact arrangement/pattern of 1's and 0's but a very loose, rough pattern - or a vast number of patterns similar in form to that of the original file. If you serially change the bits that make up a song file, after what amount of change does that song file cease to be copyrighted? After 1000? After 10000? At the point where the resultant song sounds slightly different or a bit fuzzy? I don't like the imprecision of these laws. It's is this imprecision that underlies a large portion of my opposition to copyright law. These laws imply that a person has the right to an exclusionary ownership of a vast array of different patterns of data.

As I see it, government's purpose is to embrace utilitarianism. Government's purpose is to limit some of the freedoms of those over whom it rules in order to produce the maximum amount of happiness possible for the ruled. Thus, it exists only for their benefit, precisely because it was created and is (supposed to be) maintained by those people. I don't see this bloated, reprehensible, unjust body of copyright laws as serving that end. It serves only the interests of a small number of very rich disgusting people who don't care how they damage and destabilize society insofar as they are benefited. (see: lenders, banks, blackwater, oil companies, weapons manufacturing companies, halliburton, the RIAA, the MPAA.)

/Seems to me that these days government's various enterprises and laws are designed to make a few rich people more rich by utterly screwing everyone else over - the brainwashed uneducated masses whose intellects are so addled and shriveled by their various forms of entertainment that they can't even begin to see what a mess things are.


RE: Chuckle...
By NateSLC on 5/23/2008 5:16:39 PM , Rating: 2
Can the supercalifragilistic magical copying device make copies of <p> and </p> HTML tags as well?


RE: Chuckle...
By Crank the Planet on 5/23/2008 5:18:36 PM , Rating: 5
Here's a video link of Cary Sherman, President of the RIAA, and what he thinks- Shocking!!!
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1388

Last week, many in the beltway attended the State of the Net Conference put on by the Advisory Committee to the Congressional Internet Caucus. The second panel discussion was on content filters. It was a lively panel, and how could it not be, Gigi and Cary Sherman were on it!

The panel went on for an hour, which is kind of long for any one with just a casual interest to stream over the Internet (Real Player video). I wanted to make sure that folks saw some of what I thought were the more important statements about content filtering—straight from the source: the RIAA.

(If the video above doesn’t load, please be patient, I just posted it to YouTube).

In this abridged six minutes of video, Sherman addresses four questions about filtering:

What’s the RIAA’s stance on content filtering?

What about encryption?

What about fair use?

Should Congress mandate filters for ISPs?

Lastly, Chris Soghoian asks Sherman about the legality of ripping CDs to your iPod.

Perhaps the most interesting part comes as a response to Question 2, where Sherman essentially proposes placing spyware on users' computers to get around the “problem” of encryption:

Filters can be put in the applications for example. You know, one could have a filter on the end user’s computer that would actually eliminate any benefit from…encryption because if you want to hear it, you’d have to decrypt it, and at that point the filter could work.

And he goes on to say the spyware might be in your virus checker or media player, or even in an ISP-provided modem or somewhere else under the ISP’s control. But fear not, it's just to "notify" you so you learn what's right and wrong.

Don’t believe me? Watch the video.

What's next, our keyboards will shock us when we download the wrong music?

If you care about issues of fair use and net neutrality, you owe it to yourself to learn how the recording industry would like to change the Internet, in the name of protecting its music.


RE: Chuckle...
By bodar on 5/23/2008 11:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
Sherman at least had a decent answer for the RIAA's stance on Fair Use, as opposed to the woman next to him:

"We won't say it's legal, but you won't sue you for it."

How kind of you. Sounds like she's reserving the right to buy off Congress into canceling Fair Use completely at some later date. I'm sure she'd love nothing more than to make people buy multiple copies of the same songs or worse yet, micro-transactions on a per-listen basis.

I sincerely hope she gets a terminal illness.


RE: Chuckle...
By Hawkido on 5/23/2008 5:32:52 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah they didn't intend for their site to direct people to illegally ripped ISO images when they named their product ISOHunt... LOL Nice try man.

With a name like PirateBay, how can you plead innocence.


RE: Chuckle...
By DASQ on 5/23/2008 2:28:32 PM , Rating: 2
No, it's more like people saying that Hitler did absolutely nothing good.

It doesn't matter if that's what The Pirate Bay MOSTLY has, it's the fact that there is barely a difference between The Pirate Bay and every other search engine or really any kind of caching service AT ALL.


RE: Chuckle...
By Ananke on 5/23/2008 6:03:12 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, I don't understand why Hollywood is so suicidal. To a great extend downloading is free advertisement for the products they create. Consumers will not increase purchases of music or movies if they don't have money, consumers will just shift to different entertainment. And as you can see that most probably will be console gaming. I guess pay-per-view or pay-per-listen on your PS3 is the next targeted thing, but still, if that consumer don't have the money to spend, that doesn't change anything. Instead, they will simply play more multiplayer games and participate in more social online groups, dating, making babies to teenage moms :). So sad, this country is so sad.


RE: Chuckle...
By symbiosys on 5/25/2008 7:59:59 AM , Rating: 2
I THINK your've all missed something MASSAIVE...
upload sites... sh *t
i can download LEGAL files from rapidshare.com @ 19mb/s ... ermmm.. so someone explain to me why they wouldn't be punishing the worst biggest warez (and every know wats the biggest warez site is all about... sh*t half a billion users?) site like they are persuing TPB


RE: Chuckle...
By symbiosys on 5/25/2008 8:01:21 AM , Rating: 2
edit buttons are far to come by hey? lol sorry.. but you get it guys.. sorry about the grammer.


RE: Chuckle...
By FaceMaster on 5/26/2008 6:10:32 AM , Rating: 1
I'm more pissed off about the ...'s and the fucking use of swearwords, which is just shittingly inappropriate.


By kileil on 5/23/2008 12:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
They're both search tools, and neither of them actually store the copyrighted content on their own servers.

About the only difference I see torrent sites are specialized, whereas Google will give you torrents and more.


By Oregonian2 on 5/23/2008 1:56:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well, actually Google does store copyrighted stuff on their servers. They have website cache's (copyrighted stuff) which are available to be seen via a click in their search results. Their image search contains massive copying of copyrighted images in Google's servers (as well as in the site cache storage as well). And then there's youtube....


By kileil on 5/23/2008 2:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, actually Google does store copyrighted stuff on their servers.


Sure, there are exceptions but in general they're not storing movies and music for distribution to Joe Public.

Either way, lets sue the bastards! Sue 'em all!


By Falloutboy on 5/24/2008 1:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
they're not storing movies and music for distribution to Joe Public.


neither is pirate bay


By Pjotr on 5/26/2008 4:22:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sure, there are exceptions but in general they're not storing movies and music for distribution to Joe Public.


No, sorry, that's YouTube.


By Oregonian2 on 5/27/2008 3:15:06 PM , Rating: 2
Music and movies aren't the only things copyrighted. The text on my websites are, and the photos on my websites are as well. And google has copies of those on their servers. They copied my copyrighted productions and distribute them to make money through advertising.


By heeros1 on 5/24/2008 9:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
google may let you search for the torrent, but TPB, and other torrent trackers, actually "track" the torrents. so torrent sites play an active roll in distributing the torrent content. the search function on torrent sites is just an extra, which isn't illegal.


By CU on 5/23/2008 1:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
Google is actually worse, it will give links to torrents on several different torrent sites not just the one you choice to search on.


By FITCamaro on 5/23/2008 1:42:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yes but the fact that both can give it will be enough. When a bat manufacturer can get sued because a bat was used to hit a ball, that then hit a kid in the chest and caused serious injury, I think we'll definitely get suits first from the media companies that Google and company provide a means for the h@x0r$ to pirate their media. Then we'll get suits from the victims of those suits saying Google did not inform the consumer that what they were doing was illegal.


By DASQ on 5/23/2008 2:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
Actually Google can still get you the 'real deal'; it crawls torrent sites as well.

It's one extra hop. Apparently the only difference between Google being a 'legitimate' service and being a piracy wonderland.


By DanoruX on 5/23/2008 4:03:05 PM , Rating: 3
Do a search like:

latestawesomemovie dvd rip filetype:torrent

Extra hop? I think not.


I'm just a bill....
By AntiM on 5/23/2008 12:41:54 PM , Rating: 5
I'm just a bill. Yes, I'm only a bill. And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill...

I don't know what the chances are of this being passed; most of the supporters are from CA.

We must give up our right to privacy just so a few media companies can make obscene amounts of money?? I would rather Hollywood fall off the map and never make another movie rather than give up the constitutional rights that many have fought and died for. Stop making and selling movies and music if it's going to mean the loss of my freedoms! I can live without entertainment, but I can't live with an Orwellian government. Am I over reacting here?

The most worrisome part to me is that it outlaws the use of privacy tools.




RE: I'm just a bill....
By Esquire on 5/23/2008 12:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
LOL I'm just a bill... so funny


RE: I'm just a bill....
By Apocobring on 5/23/2008 12:59:40 PM , Rating: 2
The limitations of privacy tools concerned me as well. I am aware that programs like PG2 are frequently used by torrenters, yet it is also used by people who are more cautious with using their computer. Using a torrent directly invites people to connect to your computer, but to believe that you HAVE to be using a torrent to have someone connected is flat out ignorant. Limiting privacy tools will negatively affect everyone, not just pirates - you are inviting anyone and everyone to jump on in and have a look around. (Note: Especially those of us who connect through college networks - colleges love to bombard computers with requests for access. PG2 stops a large majority of those.)


RE: I'm just a bill....
By FITCamaro on 5/23/2008 1:39:31 PM , Rating: 1
Crazy, extreme bills get drafted and proposed all the time. That doesn't mean that it'll get passed by Congress.


RE: I'm just a bill....
By TETRONG on 5/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'm just a bill....
By DASQ on 5/23/2008 2:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
I don't really think the pope gives a flying shat.