Print 195 comment(s) - last by smut.. on Jul 8 at 6:37 AM

Recent studies have shown that piracy may actually help the U.S. economy and that virtually every citizen commits some form of IP infringement on a daily basis.  (Source: Learn Languages)

Despite this, the Obama administration is firmly on the side of groups like the RIAA and MPAA and plans to crack down on infringers at home and abroad.  (Source: CITV)

Among its plans is to assist copyright organizations in prosecutory efforts, such as sending out threat/collection notices. The government also looks to legislation imminent infringement (thought crime), criminalization of P2P development, and criminalization of DRM bypassing later this year.  (Source: Flickr)
"It's smash and grab, no different than a guy walking down Fifth Avenue and smashing the window at Tiffany's and reaching in and grabbing what's in the window." -- U.S. VP Joe Biden

While they may never be able to truly defeat piracy and drive it from the lurking depths of the internet, copyright protection attack-dog organizations like the RIAA and MPAA have long dreamed of the day when they would no longer have to pay for their own copyright enforcement.  Now that dream is on the verge of coming true, thanks to the Obama administration.

After countless lobbyist dollars from the music and film industry and a brief "public review", the administration rolled out its vision to fight piracy yesterday afternoon.  U.S. Vice President Joe Biden -- whose blunt speech has sometime left him in trouble -- did not mince words.

He states, "This is theft, clear and simple.  It's smash and grab, no different than a guy walking down Fifth Avenue and smashing the window at Tiffany's and reaching in and grabbing what's in the window."

The sound-byte comparing downloads to stealing jewels from New York City's finest jeweler quickly lit up the web.  Bob Pisano, interim chief executive officer at the Motion Picture Association of America praised the VP, "It is especially critical that the United States has an effective framework for protecting creative content online and enforcing intellectual property rights in the digital environment."

According to the Obama administration, the RIAA, and MPAA, the world economy is pretty much doomed if we don't start prosecuting pirates at home and abroad.  Without such a crackdown, businesses will go bankrupt the coalition argues.  Biden states, "Piracy hurts, it hurts our economy."

Interestingly, the statements seem to fly in the face of a recent Government Accountability Office study released to U.S. Congress earlier this year, which concluded that there is virtually no evidence for the claimed million dollar losses by the entertainment industry. That study suggested that piracy could even benefit the economy.

Another noteworthy study from three years back notes that virtually every citizen violates intellectual property laws in some way on a daily basis.

The White House press release was full of buzz phrases, but short on details.  It did however indicate that the U.S. government may increasingly monitor filesharing networks and BitTorrent sites and assist media groups in their prosecution/threat letter efforts.  It speaks of improved "law enforcement efforts at the Federal, state and local level."

The biggest effort, though, will be devoted to cracking down on piracy websites in the U.S. and overseas.  The administration was short on details of how exactly it would convince piracy-loving nations like China to change their ways, but it did say it would try to do so by "being as public as we possibly can" about infringement.

The press release states, "As we shine the spotlight on foreign governments that have rogue actors doing illicit business within their borders, it's the government's responsibility to respond."

Such efforts have shown mild success.  After lots of threats against the Swedish government by the U.S., the European Union nation finally tried admins with the nation's largest torrent site The Pirate Bay last year and found them guilty.  The trial was later exposed to be a perversion of the justice system, with the judge who gave the verdict have multiple ties to copyright protection organizations.  The verdict -- $3M USD in damages and a year of hard prison time for the admins -- is currently being appealed.

The White House's vision is perhaps a prelude to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which will go before Congress later this year.  The bill would make P2P or BitTorrent client development a criminal offense if the distributed software was used for infringement.  It also implements an interesting provision called "imminent infringement", which allows the government to charge people who they think might be about to infringe with a civil offense (for example if you searched "torrent daft punk").  This is among the first official "thought crime" provisions to be proposed by the U.S. government.  The bill also makes it a criminal offense to bypass DRM.

Ultimately, it should be interesting to see how American taxpayers react to President Obama's decision to spend their money on efforts to prosecute them and try to choke out piracy at home and abroad, particularly when the current evidence is inconclusive of its effects.  One thing's for sure, though.  Top politicians on 
both sides of the aisle are firmly behind the music and movie industry anti-piracy and money-collection efforts.

Comments     Threshold

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

Sad Day
By JasonMick on 6/23/2010 10:50:27 AM , Rating: 5
I must say, I heartily commend Obama on his nuclear efforts, but this is simply unacceptable. There's a need for copyright reform, not crackdown. It's hard to deny the effect heavy lobbyist money has had on both parties in D.C. The end result is that many of you will be paying for your own prosecution.

The criminalization of DRM particularly irks me. Here is content you legally own, but you commit a crime by backing it up and protecting it from physical damage? Utterly ridiculous.

This all reminds me of the old Geto Boys song "Damn It Feels Good to be a Gangsta", which I suppose can be aptly applied to the last few administrations, including this one:
Damn it feels good to be a gangsta
Gettin voted into the white house
Everything lookin good to the people of the world
But the MAFIA(A) family is my boss

RE: Sad Day
By chmilz on 6/23/2010 11:00:33 AM , Rating: 5
DRM on everything. Ads in the theatres. Ads on my Blu-Rays. Ads in-game. Constantly designing new formats to re-sell us the same content.

There's a good reason why nearly every single human on Earth pirates, and it's because we feel like we're getting wallet-raped on every single transaction.

Fix your business model and the loyalty will come back. Otherwise, good luck with that.

RE: Sad Day
By hughlle on 6/23/2010 11:29:44 AM , Rating: 3
exactly, i simply cannot afford to purchase everything. if they released games and films and music that were actually decent, meaning i'd watch, play, listen to it again, then i wouldn't need to spend so much money on such a frequent basis. maybe 25% of films i watch i deem a good film, the rest, even with their awards and great reviews, well i'd be super pissed if i'd paid £8 to watch it in the cinema, let alone buy the dvd.

i find that games are always priced over what seems reasonable, especially for games such as sports series, which as you say, they sut slightly reorganise and sell as brand new feature packed amazingness..

RE: Sad Day
By lightfoot on 6/23/2010 12:43:15 PM , Rating: 1
i simply cannot afford to purchase everything

Then don't buy it.

But don't use the product without paying for it.

RE: Sad Day
By MrBlastman on 6/23/2010 12:48:56 PM , Rating: 5
Then don't buy it.

But don't use the product without paying for it.


But, don't give us DRM and punish us for buying it as well. It is like being a two dollar whore:

You really need the money so you turn tricks to put food in your kids mouths. One day, your son Bobby asks you,

"Mommy, why is your face red and swollen?"

"Because mommy has to work hard so we can have a good life." (while secretly avoiding telling her son about the man who nearly killed her last night).

That is how this DRM makes us all feel like--we ain't worth crap except for the next dime in our pocket and we better put out or we're going to get the crap beat out of us.

RE: Sad Day
By LordanSS on 6/23/2010 3:37:29 PM , Rating: 5
I was outraged when Ubisoft decided to come up with their latest DRM scam. Internet connection, to play offline singleplayer games/modes ? Turned out I decided to drop the Assassin's Creed franchise altogether, and even though I liked many of the Settlers' games, the new one was a no-go for me.

The funky part is about the poor implementation of it... I think to this day, people trying to play Settlers 7 still have issues with Ubi's DRM-servers outages and whatnot. Utterly inexcusable.

And you know what? All that for nothing... as crack groups already managed to break their DRM.

In the end, who suffers are legit customers. Too bad these brainless dipshits will never be able to see that.

RE: Sad Day
By BBeltrami on 6/23/2010 6:51:13 PM , Rating: 4
Isn't that the real issue? They can't tell the difference. From the White House to the Board Room at Sony, the consensus is that the bourgeoisie are all criminal.

The combined planetary resources of our species can't stop an oil leak, yet the priority for our leaders is to liken me to a burglar for listening to music...

RE: Sad Day
By Cypherdude1 on 6/25/2010 7:18:57 AM , Rating: 3
As I said before, President Obama is a total sellout to everyone and anyone who pays him money. Out of all the presidents in my lifetime, President Obama is the biggest disappointment.

RE: Sad Day
By Mojo the Monkey on 6/28/2010 8:09:31 PM , Rating: 2
I was similarly saddened about 2 weeks ago, when I realized the true extent of his hypocrisy when even John Stewart ripped him apart for 10 minutes. *sigh* ... what a let down.

RE: Sad Day
By Funksultan on 6/23/2010 1:44:57 PM , Rating: 4
Fair enough. I'd be buying all my media, but if I get home with my copy of "Latest Action Flick", and I have even the slightest thought that it's not worth the $19.99 I paid for it, back to the store it goes, and I don't want any hassles about getting my immediate refund.

When the government back up the consumers, we'll start playing by the rules. As is, returning media is extremely difficult.

RE: Sad Day
By lightfoot on 6/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: Sad Day
By jRaskell on 6/23/2010 3:10:03 PM , Rating: 4
Being able to return a product you purchased because it isn't what you wanted, doesn't meet your standards, or for whatever reason at all, is pretty damn standard for the vast majority of products out there. Many GOOD storefronts even have no questions asked return policies.

The fact that it will literally take an act of congress to be able to return most entertainment media is complete and utter BS.

What you are looking for is a rental system. Like Blockbuster, Netflix, OnDemand, PayPerView, RedBox, iTunes, XBOX Live, etc. You could even see it at a theater if $19 is too much to pay.
What if I wanted to check out a new tv, and Best Buy had a $5 door charge to the television display room, and there was absolutely no return policy on any tv you did purchase. While not a perfect analogy, it's 100x better than Biden's !@#$%!@# Tiffany analogy.

RE: Sad Day
By Spookster on 6/23/2010 7:22:02 PM , Rating: 1
You can't return all products. Try buying a candybar, taking a bite out of it and then try to return it because you didn't like it. Media such as music and movies fall under a similar scenario. I would say if the movie/music disc was not opened then yes they could return it. But if they watched/listened to part of it and decided they don't really like it then they should not be able to return it. Otherwise people would just abuse it so they could watch movies for free and just return it when they are done saying they didn't like it. As is said, Caveat Emptor. If the movie/music industry was smart they would provide digital samples of all their music and movies for customers to play and then decide if they like it enough to buy it. DirecTv does this for On Demand movies. We can watch the first 5 minutes or so of the movies and if we don't like it we can stop it and we won't be charged for the rental.

RE: Sad Day
By roadhog1974 on 6/23/2010 9:36:09 PM , Rating: 3
My wife has returned half eaten food becuase it wasn't up to sratch.

A restocking fee would be reasonable.
Tried to replace a disk that got broken,
have to pay full price.
tried to get a disk replaced that went missing,
have to pay full price.

What gets me is that you get treated like a criminal and
you have to sit through all all the crap at the beginning.

Used to spend $1000 a year on movies and dvds now I
spend maybe $20, disliked the way I was treated by
someone I was paying.

RE: Sad Day
By kyleb2112 on 6/24/2010 2:07:52 AM , Rating: 5
"Try buying a candybar, taking a bite out of it and then try to return it because you didn't like it"

I returned a Butterfinger that had been on the shelf too long. Showed the cashier the crumbly chocolate and got a quick refund and apology. Apparently the cost of losing me as a customer was greater than $0.69.

Gotta be a lesson in there somewhere...

RE: Sad Day
By lightfoot on 6/24/2010 2:29:14 PM , Rating: 2
Gotta be a lesson in there somewhere...

There is, like food, movies and music CAN be returned if they are defective. If you bought a movie or CD that would not play or was otherwise damaged/defective all stores will let you EXCHANGE it for the same title. If they are ALL defective, they will give you a refund.

What you are equating this to is taking a half eaten Butterfinger back to the store and telling the clerk that you really wanted a Snickers.

It is not the store's fault that you are not an informed consumer. And they should NEVER allow a return for any product that has been consumed (as media is when viewed/listened to.)

RE: Sad Day
By Spookster on 6/25/2010 12:58:05 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly what I was saying. At least one person understood that.

RE: Sad Day
By jimhsu on 7/6/2010 11:44:45 AM , Rating: 2
Why don't stores usually allow returns of products such as food unless its defective? It is consumed and therefore can't be resold. Now, how does aiming a low powered laser at a piece of plastic (listening to music) make the resulting media not fit for consumption? How does listening to the CD make it unsellable to the next customer? From the successful used games business at GameStop, used digital media is certainly resellable (a a high price, too).

Bad analogy.

RE: Sad Day
By DM0407 on 6/23/2010 2:35:10 PM , Rating: 3
Then don't buy it. But don't use the product without paying for it.

If he doesn't have money to buy it then he might as well pirate it. There is no money lost and he can still enjoy it. How does that affect you?

The real problem is good willed people are pirating because they refuse to pay for the price demanded. If the price were lowered to reasonable levels, these people would pay retail.

People only have so much money to spend (and usually still overspend). So I don't get this argument that we are hurting the economy. As if we just burn the money we save on pirated products. This is a version of market correction. The public is refusing to pay the price, so they are finding alternatives.

I'd rather give my money to the small shop owner that sells me a physical good on which he relies, than go without and buy myself an overpriced record that will bolster the pockets of the rich.

This law also seems to overstep the power of the executive branch, but if all branches are in collusion it could get through.

RE: Sad Day
By alphadog on 6/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: Sad Day
By AEvangel on 6/23/2010 5:10:09 PM , Rating: 3
If he doesn't love that girl, he may as well rape her.

Nope, your not right your a moron.

RE: Sad Day
By YoSima on 6/23/2010 5:30:18 PM , Rating: 3
If he doesn't love that girl, he may as well rape her.

You forgot to mention the part where the "rape" takes place entirely in his imagination and does no harm to the actual girl herself.

Or, if you didn't forget that and actually meant what you posted, I take it you're one of those people cannot grasp basic economics and seriously believes "copyright infringement is theft"?

RE: Sad Day
By tmouse on 6/24/2010 8:19:27 AM , Rating: 2
I take it you're one of those people cannot grasp basic economics and seriously believes "copyright infringement is theft"?


While I'll agree copyright infringement does not have the total effects the lobbying groups state it has( which is based on 100% of the infringement equal lost sales) the implication it has NO effect is equally absurd. If there were absolutely no ramifications to the actions do you really believe that the vast majority of people would still pay anything for something they can get for free?

I am opposed to many of the "laws" mentioned in the article. Under NO circumstances do I feel anyone should ever be convicted of a "thought crime", and people with a "license" should be able to use the material where ever and how ever they choose (as long as they do not duplicate it for others). However having no repercussions absolutely will have negative economic effects and it will further erode the quality since it is cheaper to churn out clone format crap and do remakes than make new material. Most of the measures mentioned in the article are equivalent to hammering a finishing nail with a sledge hammer. Unfortunately the best way is not to pirate (which implies a demand) but just boycott and be vocal about why no one is buying or copying things.

As for copyright infringement is not theft see my quote from the US Supreme court.

RE: Sad Day
By neogrin on 6/24/2010 11:56:17 AM , Rating: 2

Pronunciation: \'theft\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English thiefthe, from Old English thiefth; akin to Old English theof thief
Date: before 12th century

1 a: the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
2 obsolete : something stolen
3 : a stolen base in baseball

Please explain how coping a file deprives the rightful owner of that file.

RE: Sad Day
By tmouse on 6/25/2010 8:30:23 AM , Rating: 2
Theft of trade secrets clearly deprives the owner of revenue without a loss of the use of the secret.

Theft of service deprives someone of their time and effort even though they can still make money from others.

Identity theft clearly damages the victim even though they still remain the same person (they do not become a non entity)

The loss of the ability to exercise an exclusive right can cause real harm to the person deprived of the intangible even though they still have access to the intangible.
As for you dictionary quote, note: "an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property". The property is the exclusive right to duplicate the item for distribution, and intangible property but property none the less. The act of infringement is the unlawful taking since they were not authorized to perform the action.

It's patently absurd to think the only people who download are those who would never buy because they could not afford to. Implicit to that argument is that there exists a "right" to have everything which simply does not exist.

Many people other than the big companies are hurt by these actions, they are the people who get a share in the revenue of the item based on sales in place of direct payment. This has become VERY common today. These people get NOTHING from concerts ect. since their part was only involved with the production of the song or movie. Any sales loss due to the availability of free copies deprives them of their payment for the services they rendered. That theft of service is intangible but real none the less.

RE: Sad Day
By YoSima on 6/24/2010 11:57:11 AM , Rating: 2
I probably should have made my stance clearer in my original post, tmouse, but I almost completely agree with you. My point was that piracy is not comparable, both conceptually and economically, to theft. In the specific example above which was being addressed, where somebody said "If he doesn't have money to buy it then he might as well pirate it," there was no loss of sale, and thus no loss to anybody involved. Should it be illegal? Yes, because the owner of the copyright should have the right to determine how the copyrighted product is distributed. But was anybody at all harmed in the example? Obviously not.

Despite the above example, piracy in general does have negative effects on the economy. While a vast majority does not, there is at least some amount of piracy that does result in lost sales. Copyright infringement absolutely should be illegal, and in an ideal world there should be ways to enforce it. Realistically, however, all solutions to the enforcement issue that have been proposed and considered by lawmakers have involved large-scale invasions of privacy. The particular bill mentioned in this article would obviously be unconstitutional.

Regarding the supreme court quote, it is only natural that even virtual property should be considered property. It is also natural that if it were actually possible to steal said property, it would be subject to theft. The problem with the interpretation that which makes piracy an act of theft is that it's not possible to steal such virtual property through the technology used for piracy in the first place. BitTorrent-based piracy, for example, is somebody using a computer to make a copy of data that already exists on that computer, then upload that copy to another person's computer. The issue has nothing to do with a perceived difference between virtual and physical property. If it were physically possible to make a complete copy of somebody's corporeal possession without their consent, performing that wouldn't be considered theft either.

Copyright infringement and theft are two very different things which are only superficially similar ("you wouldn't download a car" etc). The latter almost always results in a financial loss, while most of the former end up being benign. Both acts are (and should be) crimes, but for completely different reasons. It is a very dangerous line to tread when legislation is rationalized by comparing those two acts; one may as well be comparing verbal assault to murder.

RE: Sad Day
By tmouse on 6/25/2010 9:01:22 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with your statements concerning the severe problems surrounding the legislations being purposed. I feel it's another smoke screen so congress can seem to be doing something for the economy but in reality it will do nothing as most of the actions to date have done.

As for the rest we differ in our views of the impact of piracy, while I do not agree it is the root of all of the motion picture and music industry's problems as they would portray it to be, I also do not agree it is very minor as most feel. I know a lot of people who give each other "free" copies and they can certainly afford to buy them. I'm sure I'm not the only one who knows these types. I'm sorry if you cannot afford to have something ; you are not entitled to get it just because "you would not have been a sale anyways". We all have heard or know people who have thousands of songs they downloaded, while they MAY have not bought any of those songs (a point I HIGHLY doubt) the availability of these sources certainly has effects since I have never heard of a torrent only available ONLY to those who cannot afford or would otherwise never buy the item.

I think one of the problems in the theft argument is the notion it's the item in question that's the intangible and since it still exists (just duplicated) there has been no theft. It most certainly is not; digital information is real it is NOT the intangible. The intangible is the distribution rights, more specifically the EXCLUSIVE duplication rights for distribution. These most certainly ARE permanently lost during piracy. Furthermore, people other than the studios are hurt. These people have agreed to take fractions of proceeds from sales as part of the recompense for their services, that is theft of service. These revenues are usually based on sales over a certain number and they are in fact severely impacted by piracy since the studios get all of the early money.

RE: Sad Day
By Fracture on 6/24/2010 12:51:57 PM , Rating: 2
However having no repercussions absolutely will have negative economic effects and it will further erode the quality since it is cheaper to churn out clone format crap and do remakes than make new material

Except that it won't and doesn't unless you count the crap sequels the studios are making. Having no repercussions or enforcement for copyright and IP has been shown to increase productivity, creativity, innovation, and invention. All these laws do is limit resources and funnel money to specific companies on a twisted, backward scheme where non-originators can buy up smaller companies not to profit from their ideas, but to profit from the enforcement of copyright.

If there were absolutely no ramifications to the actions do you really believe that the vast majority of people would still pay anything for something they can get for free?

You're still missing the value of free. Free infinite goods can be used to increase the value AND price of finite goods. People will pay more if they get more enjoyment from those things - if they got to hear all the songs an artist has and likes them more because of it, they'll be willing to pay more for concert tickets.

And as for your Supreme Court quote, allow me to add one that illustrates that even SCOTUS recognizes the fundamental differences between copyright infringement and theft.

Justice Blackmun stated explicitly:
Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

RE: Sad Day
By tmouse on 6/25/2010 8:09:03 AM , Rating: 2
Except that it won't and doesn't unless you count the crap sequels the studios are making.

Of course it does, you just drop a clear example and put a unsubstantiated statement as a proof. Your are basically saying a free copy of something will not stop any sales of the same merchandise which has a cost associated with it. I'm sorry but that is totally ridiculous. People do not pay for something out of the goodness of their hearts or because it's the right thing to do.

People will pay more if they get more enjoyment from those things - if they got to hear all the songs an artist has and likes them more because of it, they'll be willing to pay more for concert tickets

You seem to be forgetting some people here, not all artists are the creators of their materials, you clearly have absolutely no knowledge of what is required to make a record. There are many people that are even more crucial in producing the sound (ie mixing, arranging ect.) than the performer. These people get nothing from concert revenue and yet they are crucial to the success of the song. If you move up to movies the number of stakeholders increases far more and here your example of free increasing value completely falls apart (live performances of movies?).

Maybe in the very limited case of a product being totally produced by a single individual you may have an argument that it can provide incentive for more revenue BUT that's only for other items that will not be free. No enforcement means everything becomes fair game and removes ALL revenue except for live concerts. Now let's take it further: IF someone should be able to get a free CD because they cannot afford it should not another person be able to freely broadcast the concert? You really think that would have no negative effects on concert revenue? Why do you think sports events are blacked out in the areas they are played in? It does in fact boost ticket sales. Many are disappointed when they hear a live performance since the song only sounds as good as it does because of the perfect control of a sound studio, others simply cannot have a symphony travel with them. Others complain when they are reduced to paying to see the performer "ape" singing to a recording. Of course hard core fans will always go but many tickets are sold to people who go to see the performance and if they could see it at home would, the live experience is not what they are after.

The en banc resolution pretty much says the legislators have complete control in what can and cannot be defined as theft. Even if some members of the court disagree. There is a valid definition that copyright gives exclusive first sale distribution rights to the holder. Now anyone should have the right to dispose of their merchandise after first sale however that is ONLY for that specific item (NO COPIES). I think it's clear providing copies permanently deprives the holder of their exclusive first sale distribution rights. The decision clearly leaves to congress to include or remove specific categories of intangibles from the definition of theft.

RE: Sad Day
By David at The Industry Trust on 6/25/2010 11:11:02 AM , Rating: 2
The real problem is good willed people are pirating because they refuse to pay for the price demanded. If the price were lowered to reasonable levels, these people would pay retail.

Hi DM0407,

In response to your point, around 150,000 peoples jobs depend on the industry in the UK. Many of these are people who are freelance and project workers who depend on dvd / film sales for their income. The costs of DVD’s needs to be viable so that everyone who contributes to the making of a film is rewarded fairly.

As you probably already know, the film industry is heavily reliant on reinvestment – it ploughs the money it makes from one film into the next and so on. The less money there is to reinvest, the more the industry dries up.

One of the things I think it is easy to forget is that for all the big successful blockbuster films, there are more which the industry took a risk on – put money into but didn’t recoup their production costs.

For example, statistics collated by the UK Film council tell us that between 2000 and 2006, only 53 (8.1%) out of the 658 certified UK films released would have made a profit when you consider all the associated costs such as production, VAT, exhibition, distribution and retail margins, prints and advertising etc.

I hope you agree that it is really important that the industry can still take these risks as otherwise we may lose the diversity of films.


David from the Trust

RE: Sad Day
By alphadog on 6/23/2010 3:47:52 PM , Rating: 2
Generally true, but I hate how I have to "rebuy" material to keep up with format changes. What would be great would be a license to content, not license to content and media.

RE: Sad Day
By Lazarus Dark on 6/23/2010 10:58:55 PM , Rating: 2
That is essentially what many of us want and why criminalizing breaking drm is such a slap in the face of consumers/citizens. I buy a disc, and I expect to have the right to do with that disc as I please, rip it to my hard drive, transfer it to my smartphone, etc. But they want you to may five times for the same thing. Its as though you bought gas and the gas station wanted you to pay everytime you start up the car with thier gas in it. Or a lawnmower maker wants you to pay everytime you mow the lawn. Maybe you should pay levis every time you put on their jeans.

RE: Sad Day
By YashBudini on 6/23/2010 11:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
"Generally true, but I hate how I have to "rebuy" material to keep up with format changes."

You think that most people that have built massive DVD libraries are going to replace everything with Blu-ray? Hell the $30 discs they purchased years ago are now selling for $5. What idiot is going to repeat that mistake with Blu-ray? Years ago I spent over $300 for a CD burner. When DVD burners came out I waited and paid $30.

Try to gather a sense of relief by thinking "There's nothing out there that I want anyways."

RE: Sad Day
By reader1 on 6/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: Sad Day
By lightfoot on 6/23/2010 12:52:58 PM , Rating: 3
Or better yet, it would get the person who posted it in the comments banned from the site.

That is something I could support.

RE: Sad Day
By Iaiken on 6/23/2010 3:13:26 PM , Rating: 3
Don't worry reader, one of these days the lobbyists will push to make even the discussion of infringement a crime. Nay! Even thinking about it would be a crime!

Open up their definition and ANY form of networked data system is against the law because of it's capacity to be used for infringement.

HTTP, FTP, WebServices, P2P toolsets, or any other form of streaming of binary data from one machine to another have all played key roles in the piracy of music and movies and need to be stopped!

The question is, where do we draw the line because as you've seen from my above notion, literalism would essentially shut down the internet. There will ALWAYS be people who share data, whether they are entitled to or not.

Currently, just about every person who has used a computer has inadvertently committed copyright infringement. Are you going to ask that the government pay to investigate, prosecute and (possibly) incarcerate everyone?

What is needed is COPYRIGHT REFORM that draws those lines so that artists can effectively protect their property. It is NOT the governments job to do it for them on the tax payers dime and hand over cheque after cheque to the RIAA and MPAA as they bust people. That's just retarded.

RE: Sad Day
By Staples on 6/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: Sad Day
By crleap on 6/23/2010 4:05:32 PM , Rating: 5
I'm very sorry for you that you're so spineless. People who blindly follow laws, because they're law, make me sad.

Laws are just another creation of man. Typically, they are creations by rich and powerful men to control the masses so they can stay as rich and powerful as possible.

Have fun in the slow lane behind granny driving 45, I'll be turning off here.

RE: Sad Day
By spread on 6/23/2010 11:02:16 AM , Rating: 5
It's to be expected. The US is a corporocracy (is that a word?). Obama wouldn't dare bite the hand that feeds him.

This is why a guy can go to jail for smoking a joint, but corporate criminals like the ones destroying oceans and people's lives only get a stern talking to.

RE: Sad Day
By DigitalFreak on 6/23/2010 12:26:43 PM , Rating: 3
The word you're looking for is Corporatocracy.

RE: Sad Day
By brshoemak on 6/23/2010 12:29:09 PM , Rating: 5
It's to be expected. The US is a corporocracy (is that a word?). The administration in power at any given time wouldn't dare bite the hand that feeds him.

Fixed that for ya. Not saying I agree with it, not saying it's right - but if anyone believes this wouldn't happen if a Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertian, My Little Pony was in office then they are fooling themselves.

It's just the country we live in. We all think we can change that aspect of government with votes and the next one will be different, but votes are all politicians are looking for in the end. I'm not being pessimistic, just realistic as history (the future) will show.

RE: Sad Day
By ClownPuncher on 6/23/2010 3:30:48 PM , Rating: 3
I'm pretty sure they just ressurected Draco to write these laws. History, you are so repetetive.

RE: Sad Day
By reader1 on 6/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: Sad Day
By DM0407 on 6/23/2010 2:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
And it's consumers that feed the corporations.

Unfortunately these corporate copeteitors tend to scratch each others back leaving the consumer with no option but to feed the beast.

If there was a record company, that paid their artists well, and offered reasonable prices with reasonably priced CEO's both the public and the artists would flock to it and the others would die off. Contracts and barriers of entry prevent a reasonable company from making a reasonable profit.

RE: Sad Day
By illicitpopsicle on 6/26/2010 4:13:22 AM , Rating: 2
Ah, but there are. Look at "punk rock" labels like Alternative Tentacles and Dischord Records. They're among the most honest, reasonable labels in the business and yet, unfortunately, people are not flocking to them. Artists are not flocking to them.

RE: Sad Day
By wiz220 on 6/23/2010 5:08:26 PM , Rating: 3
I like your word, but technically I think the term that fits best here is Facism. :)

RE: Sad Day
By bug77 on 6/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: Sad Day
By inighthawki on 6/23/2010 11:44:40 AM , Rating: 2
You purchase a license, but you do in fact still own the physical medium that the content is stored on (with exception of downloaded digital content, which is still your own copy of the files with a license)

RE: Sad Day
By Solandri on 6/23/2010 12:08:22 PM , Rating: 5
It's not even a license. It's some strange illogical entity which is a license when it most benefits them, and ownership when it most benefits them. If it were purely a license and you accidentally destroyed your media, they would be required to give you another copy for material cost since you still own the license.

But they don't. They expect you to go out and buy another copy, as if you were buying a physical product. AFAIK, Disney is the only exception. They will replace destroyed media with proof of ownership, probably because too many parents complained after their kids destroyed the DVD or VHS tape.

Look at the software industry. They do it right. When you buy software, you're buying a true license. If you destroy the media, they will replace it at cost. If they come out with a new and improved version, they don't force you to pay full retail price for it. They recognize that your license already paid for most of the features in the new version, so they let you upgrade to it at a reduced price.

RE: Sad Day
By spread on 6/23/2010 12:25:07 PM , Rating: 2
Well yes. Corporations look out for their own self interests.

How about we flip over who buys lunch? Tails I win, heads you lose.

RE: Sad Day
By hughlle on 6/23/2010 12:08:33 PM , Rating: 2
indeed. i wonder if they have bothered to consider that a huge majority is downloaded because it's not worth watching, not because it's simply easier to pirate it.

i still think that they can in no way try and restrict me from doing what i want with my disk. unless they are willing to replace free of charge if it breaks?

RE: Sad Day
By lightfoot on 6/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: Sad Day
By just4U on 6/23/2010 1:17:51 PM , Rating: 3
I would say a vast majority download to get a preview and see if it's worth spending money on. Anyway, None of this matters.. when laws make a entire generation and practically all people over the age of 4 criminals then it needs to be looked into because something is wrong..

and unless their in a life long coma I'd say damn near everyone in western civilization is guilty, Some know it, Most don't.

RE: Sad Day
By DM0407 on 6/23/2010 2:51:07 PM , Rating: 3
Kinda similar to the 1910's when the first drug laws were enacted.

For a lifetime, people took "wonder medicines" which included highly concentrated amounts of opium and/or cocaine. Along with this there was a massive number of Civil War opium addicts (first given to them for wounds/amputations). Sears catalog even sold syringes of heroin and cocaine use....

When opium heroin and cocaine became illegal these addicts were not considered, and everyday hardworking (addicted) Americans became criminals overnight. Considered the bane of American Society. Corporations prospered at the cost of the health of the public.

Not saying we're addicted to downloading, but to allow it one day and make it illegal the next has never worked well.(prohibition anyone?)

The law needs to be better defined and considerate of both sides.

RE: Sad Day
By YashBudini on 6/23/2010 10:56:52 PM , Rating: 2
There used to be kiosks that allowed a person to hear songs on CDs and then decided if they want to buy them. Some people entered the store at lunch just to hear a few free songs, which apparently was no big deal. Was that really giving away so much? I'd expect that the more they clamp down the more sales they will lose. The real reason for lost sales? Most of the stuff is pure crap. Too bad they don't track how many people stopped buying anything.

RE: Sad Day
By Hiawa23 on 6/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: Sad Day
By Siki on 6/23/2010 3:28:51 PM , Rating: 5
It is not stealing. Why do you think they call it "piracy" and not theft? "Piracy" is a word the industry made up to make copyright infringement sound like theft. They have backed that up with cheap sayings, just like the Biden comment quoted in this article, and visual stimuli to ingrain this warped view of copyright infringement as theft. These two actions under the law are very different and have always been treated differently. These people are not stealing; they are reproducing data, plain and simple. Theft is taking property from an owner. When you produce a copy, you are not taking property from anyone. You are creating, not stealing.

Someone commented about the licensing of content for DVDs and CDs as being unrealistic, I totally agree. They need to pursue changing their licensing to something that people find desirable. Personally, I don't buy CDs anymore because I damage them too quickly. When this happens, the idea of paying for another license, when all I need is to produce another CD containing this data I've already paid for the right to use, does not seem worthwhile to me. With the availability of the internet, these companies can send this data to the consumer for a reasonable price. The consumer should be allowed to produce a copy of the content they have purchased a license to use. The people in this industry seem to think that say if someone is running raid mirrored hard drives, then if they purchase and download a song it is pirating music because they have multiple physical copies. That is ridiculous!

I don't agree with using copyrighted material without the consent of the owner for the simple reason that such things (music, movies, games, what have you) will likely not exist if the creators are not compensated for the time it takes to produce the content.

RE: Sad Day
By noirsoft on 6/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: Sad Day
By ShaolinSoccer on 6/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: Sad Day
By bighairycamel on 6/23/2010 5:42:29 PM , Rating: 3
a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

And to back up that definition:
1 : to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control: as a : to seize or capture physically

You must have scored poorly in reading comprehension. When he said "creating" he didn't mean intellectual property. What he meant was creating the binary data that makes up digital media. It's like taking a chapter from To Kill a Mockingbird and copying it by hand. The original pages still exist, the book hasn't been stolen. You've simply created a copy for your personal use. I'm not saying that's justified, but it is NOT the same thing as stealing.

RE: Sad Day
By YashBudini on 6/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: Sad Day
By noirsoft on 6/23/2010 11:32:35 PM , Rating: 2

1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully <stole a car> b : to take away by force or unjust means <they've stolen our liberty> c : to take surreptitiously or without permission <steal a kiss> d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of <steal the show>

So there. From the same dictionary. No mention of depriving the original owner of use. And, since what I said was "it is stealing" then I stand by the definition of "steal" rather than the definition of "theft" as more appropriate to the conversation.

As to why I got rated down? A lot of people around here don't like the truth when it contradicts their "I deserve everything for free" attitude.

RE: Sad Day
By bighairycamel on 6/24/2010 11:17:27 AM , Rating: 2
And to back up that definition:

1 : to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control: as a : to seize or capture physically

Why did you think I linked this definition in my first reply? Because whether you look up "stealing" or "theft" it still refers to TAKING a physical possession. Go back and read your own definition. So unless you count the electrons needed to create a binary data file or the length of a magentic platter used to store it, there is no physical property being taken.

RE: Sad Day
By noirsoft on 6/24/2010 6:45:07 PM , Rating: 2
So "stealing a kiss" and "stealing liberty" in the defition of "steal" are physical objects?

You linked to the definition that supported your (erroneous) argument, rather than the definition of the word being used, which clearly refers to non-physical things as well.

Just accept that you're wrong. Copying without permission is stealing. It may not be "theft" (in the legal sense, which does appear to require some physical object according to the definition) but it is stealing nonetheless.

RE: Sad Day
By bighairycamel on 6/24/2010 7:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
I can only venture to guess that you're a pre-teen without a mature grasp on logical thinking.

"Stealing liberty" is a figure of speech, and that synonym of the word "steal" in no way fits this argument. Just because it appears in the dictionary next to other synonym definitions of the word doesn't make them magically apply. If I tell you to turn the lamp on , and you go to lookup what the word on means you're going to get many definitions. By your logic you would come back and try to stand on it. Use your brain.

Now that we've had dictionary usage 101, I'll get back on subject. We're talking about acquiring data, nothing else. You can honestly tell me that you think photocopying pages of a book, which are subject to the same intellectual property laws as music, is STEALING? Because legal precedent says it isn't which was challenged after xerox machines came out. It's the SAME principle, try to wrap your head around that. Making an IDENTICAL replication of pages of the book is the same as copying data bit for bit when the original item remains in tact, untouched and uncompromised.

And don't bother lumping me in with the pirates. I don't download music or movies and I never have, never will. But you don't have to be a pirate to realize the obvious differences between STEALING and copying data.

RE: Sad Day
By noirsoft on 6/26/2010 8:03:00 AM , Rating: 2
I'm terribly sorry that you can't admit tht you're wrong and have to rely on (incorrect) assumptions about my age instead of actual facts, which we shall review now:

1) I said that piracy is stealing.
2) You said "no" and use the defintition of the similar (but not the same) word "theft" as a claim that it requires a physical object.
3) I respond with the definition of "steal" which clearly applies to non-physical objects.
4) You respond "nuh uh nuh uh" and try to insist that it still requires a physical object despite the evidence.
5) I point out in the definition of "steal" (the top definition of the transitive verb "to steal") how their own examples use non-tangible objects.
6) You stick your fingers in your ears and flail around whining, go off on tangents and so forth.

Look: the word "steal" does not apply to only physical pbjects. That's established. Get over it.

If anyone fails to grasp logic, it's you.

RE: Sad Day
By Reclaimer77 on 6/24/2010 3:31:25 AM , Rating: 2
In a court of law, file sharing CANNOT be tried as theft. It's IP infringement. Not a single person has been tried, much less convinced, of theft from file sharing.

RE: Sad Day
By tmouse on 6/24/2010 7:57:32 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry but as of 2009 your wrong.

Laurel vs. Judge Abrogar (Supreme Court, 2009)
The Supreme Court in an EN BANC RESOLUTION declared:

Prior to the passage of the Revised Penal Code on December 8, 1930, the definition of the term "personal property" in the penal code provision on theft had been established in Philippine jurisprudence. This Court, in United States v. Genato, United States v. Carlos, and United States v. Tambunting, consistently ruled that any personal property, tangible or intangible, corporeal or incorporeal, capable of appropriation can be the object of theft.

Moreover, since the passage of the Revised Penal Code on December 8, 1930, the term "personal property" has had a generally accepted definition in civil law. In Article 335 of the Civil Code of Spain, "personal property" is defined as "anything susceptible of appropriation and not included in the foregoing chapter (not real property)." Thus, the term "personal property" in the Revised Penal Code should be interpreted in the context of the Civil Code provisions in accordance with the rule on statutory construction that where words have been long used in a technical sense and have been judicially construed to have a certain meaning, and have been adopted by the legislature as having a certain meaning prior to a particular statute, in which they are used, the words used in such statute should be construed according to the sense in which they have been previously used. In fact, this Court used the Civil Code definition of "personal property" in interpreting the theft provision of the penal code in United States v. Carlos.

Cognizant of the definition given by jurisprudence and the Civil Code of Spain to the term "personal property" at the time the old Penal Code was being revised, still the legislature did not limit or qualify the definition of "personal property" in the Revised Penal Code. Neither did it provide a restrictive definition or an exclusive enumeration of "personal property" in the Revised Penal Code, thereby showing its intent to retain for the term an extensive and unqualified interpretation. Consequently, any property which is not included in the enumeration of real properties under the Civil Code and capable of appropriation can be the subject of theft under the Revised Penal Code

Currently the Supreme court finds that intangibles can be the subject of theft. This is not to say I support most of the measures in the article (I do not)but this is a current fact, while people can have their own opinions under current interpretation of the highest court copyright infringement can be considered theft in the US.

RE: Sad Day
By Noya on 6/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: Sad Day
By MrBlastman on 6/23/2010 11:17:45 AM , Rating: 3
I saw a great bumper sticker the other day and it was aptly worded and says a lot:

I was against Obama before it was COOL

That pretty much speaks for itself. It is an interesting time, considering that now TWO states have rebelled against our President, starting with Arizona, now Louisiana. Who's next?

I agree there needs to be copyright reform along with attitudes changed regarding the downloading of movies and other content people work so hard to produce (aside from the RIAA, fock the RIAA), however, the criminalization of DRM removal is absurd. For years people have been able to back up their software, music, movies or other content to preserve their originals.

I remember in the 1980's when I purchased a game from Sierra, in the manual they _encouraged_ me to make a backup copy of the game's original disks and then play the game using these backup copies. Of course, they had a form of copy protection requiring the original disks, codewheel or a manual check--Neverlock (remember that? :) ) changed everything allowing us to crack those measures.

The thing is, I paid for that software. Neverlock helped me get around the annoyance and continue to enjoy it. In the 90's, CD-Checks became common, which, are extremely annoying. Good thing we were able to crack those as well. Then came rootkits by Sony and other intrusive forms of DRM after that. Those became difficult, but, eventually, ghetto workarounds were found. Now they are putting DRM on songs, movies, online authentication is being required for software... methods that there are even more ghetto cracks available for.

See a pattern? The CONSUMER is being victimized here. The Pirates win every time. The Pirates always find a way to get around it. The Consumer is left with the DRM/Copy Protection and the annoyances they afford. The Pirates cease to be stopped by it.

The Consumer is now going to be PUNISHED for trying to get around these increasing annoyances themselves just to enjoy the product they purchased!

Wait. I thought these measures were to stop Piracy. Now they are admitting that it can't! In order to keep them from coming straight out and saying: "Well, we're sorry, we can't stop piracy with all the money we have spent on DRM," they are going to use the Government as their tool to subject the people to their annoying controls that don't work.

Something is just wrong with that. The only ones losing out here are the paying customers. The Pirates still win because they still don't give a crap about it being illegal. They're breaking the law to begin with.

This accomplishes nothing but punishing the innocent even further.

I'm glad that bumper sticker speaks about where I stood before this whole mess began. Now I get to sit back and watch all the plebes come out crying about him, after they voted him into office.

What a joke.

RE: Sad Day
By Iaiken on 6/23/2010 11:55:52 AM , Rating: 5
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement began life under the watchful eyes of the GoP and has continued to expand into a more vile and repugnant bill with each iteration.

The fact that they tried to keep ACTA secret so long goes a long way towards telling the public just how counter to their interests this is and that they should speak out against it, vote against anyone who supports it.

But wait! It's a two party system and it is now becoming obvious that BOTH parties are in the pocket of the RIAA and MPAA lobbyists.

Welcome to America; where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't and damning citizens of other nations to the same fate behind closed doors.

RE: Sad Day
By MrBlastman on 6/23/2010 12:10:44 PM , Rating: 4
But wait! It's a two party system and it is now becoming obvious that BOTH parties are in the pocket of the RIAA and MPAA lobbyists.

You are absolutely correct. BOTH parties are guilty of this, along with a lot of the other messes we are dealing with.

It is this very reason why blind radicals on both sides of the isle piss me off. I hear people ranting and raving about how great the Democrats are on here, and then, I hear others ranting about how great the Republicans are on here.

Guess what?

They're both wrong. They are both blinded by their own seething hatred for the other side that they all fail to realize that perhaps now is the time to change for the better and seek out something new. Something... non-partisan for a change. Something less... "radical" that actually listens to what the people want.

We're not getting that right now. Why all the blind support for either party then?

ACTA is just downright despicable.

RE: Sad Day
By sviola on 6/23/2010 12:30:52 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you know the the french in 1789, if the government is shitting on the people and there are no options (both parties are together on this), rebel and throw down the model...

RE: Sad Day
By knutjb on 6/23/2010 1:43:37 PM , Rating: 1
Well, you know the the french in 1789, if the government is shitting on the people and there are no options (both parties are together on this), rebel and throw down the model...
I think you have it wrong, the people aren't the ones rebelling, the politicians are rebelling against their obligation to the public.

The French went into an anarchist reaction which was in no way was similar to ours. The French have been through a number of "new" governments since, we have not. Contrary to leftist belief, our system is not the problem, its the people in it.

The model isn't wrong or bad but has been hijacked by the self-interest of the politicians. The people need to compare politicians words v actions. If you aren't voting out the lifers you are simply perpetuating the problem. I was lucky enough to help vote out Tom Foley (WA) and Tom Daschle (SD). Both had been in their jobs too long and forgot who they represented and the voters spoke.

Politicians are like electricity or water, they take the path of least resistance. Voting them out changes that flow. The more who get voted out the greater that change. Being a citizen does require work and responsibility. You must hold the politicians to their words. Corporations don't have ultimate control if you don't put the same bozo back in the job. Not all long term politicians are bad, sadly though, few are good.

Too many people have just been along for the ride and the check. If a politician sounds like an ad where it sounds too good to be true...

RE: Sad Day
By Kurz on 6/23/2010 2:35:00 PM , Rating: 1
Actually there is something wrong with our system.
I'll tell you... Its the Federal Reserve and in extension all Central banks.

These Central banks give these political dogs the ability to dip into funds they would not have access to.
Money is the motivator and the driver of all policy, take that way the government must shrink it must become sensible.

FIAT systems are the reason for most of the ills we are experiencing in todays world.

RE: Sad Day
By bodar on 6/23/2010 6:49:43 PM , Rating: 2
The Comedian -- "What happened to the American Dream? It came true. You're lookin' at it."

RE: Sad Day
By aegisofrime on 6/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: Sad Day
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: Sad Day
By smut on 7/8/2010 6:37:32 AM , Rating: 1
I suppose you had no problem when Republican presidents fired military for "freedom of speech"? Our last President fired many military for their opposition to the Iraq war. There is a thing called the Code of Conduct.

RE: Sad Day
By Chiisuchianu on 6/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: Sad Day
By Alexvrb on 6/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: Sad Day
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2010 4:42:48 PM , Rating: 2
Jason are you honestly surprised?

Go research how the Obama administration is going to use the FCC to completely take over the Internet. In junction with these silly anti-piracy methods, we're seeing the last bastion of self regulation free speech and expression die: the Internet in it's current form.

Talk about buyers remorse! We got change alright, but it's nothing we were hoping for.

RE: Sad Day
By Iaiken on 6/23/2010 5:22:46 PM , Rating: 2

Wow... You actually think that things would have been that much different under the GOP?

It doesn't matter WHO you vote for so long as lobbyists can legally spend money to influence the government in manners counter to the interests of the people who voted them into power.

Until that happens, BOTH parties are just well dressed stooges.

Money doesn't just talk, it rules nations.

RE: Sad Day
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2010 5:31:56 PM , Rating: 2
Wow... You actually think that things would have been that much different under the GOP?

Is this a joke? Of course it would be. The GOP has been in power before. Did we see this happen then? NO.

RE: Sad Day
By Kaleid on 6/23/2010 6:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
The GOP bend over even faster.

RE: Sad Day
By Newspapercrane on 6/25/2010 7:03:02 AM , Rating: 2
*Ahem* Patriot act.

That is all.

RE: Sad Day
By sprockkets on 6/23/2010 5:41:22 PM , Rating: 2
Dude why the f uck are you posting your opinion on your own article? You are a blogger dumb a ss; post that s hit up at the top.

RE: Sad Day
By AssBall on 6/23/2010 5:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
Forgot your retard medicine again this morning, eh? Tsk...tsk.

RE: Sad Day
By Nutzo on 6/23/2010 5:41:59 PM , Rating: 2
As expected, there goes the Obama administration, try to destoy one of the few growth industries left in this country :)

RE: Sad Day
By Nik00117 on 6/23/2010 10:36:55 PM , Rating: 2
According to the Obama administration, the RIAA, and MPAA, the world economy is pretty much doomed if we don't start prosecuting pirates at home and abroad.



World Economy estimated to be worth $50,000,000,000,000 (50 TRILLION DOLLARS)

Whats the cost of privacy in estimated lost revenue

Please note I said estimated lost revenue not lost revenue but what they think they lost

Lets say 100,000,000,000 ($100 billion dollars)AKA .02% of the world economy.....02% not even 1% and I bet I doubled the estimate cost of privacy too!!!

I have "pirated games, music, and movies in the past"

Just supposing there was no method of me getting those items for free would I pay for them? I would say 75% of the I wouldn't...The other 25% is well that alone is a high number.

Either way this is BS.

RE: Sad Day
By Velveeta on 6/23/2010 11:22:32 PM , Rating: 2
Someone's managed to hit the nail on the head finally... When making calculations of the impact of piracy on their actual bottom line, the RIAA/MPAA likes to consider that every single pirated copy is a lost sale... However, it's only a lost sale if the person would have otherwise paid for the item in question, had it not been available for free via piracy... A lot of the items people pirate (and the majority of peoples' sentiments on here would tend to confirm) are things they never would have paid for, either because they're tired of the crap that's churned out by major labels/companies today, or they're tired of being treated like criminals in the first place for a crime they haven't yet committed, or they're tired of being punished from enjoying a product they've legally purchased by way of DRM hassles, or some other reason... If a person would never have purchased the product in question, it's not a lost sale for the IP holder... The figures these organizations come up with are hideously overinflated...

RE: Sad Day
By zmatt on 6/24/2010 7:52:28 AM , Rating: 2
And with this, They just lost the vote of almost all young Americans in the next election. People don't like ti when you alienate them and listen to lobbyists.

RE: Sad Day
By Velveeta on 6/24/2010 3:18:48 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, the pool of young American voters is one of the smallest segments of the overall voting pool, so this won't mean much to any politicians reading this... One of the largest voting blocs are the senior citizens, and even in this day and age, a lot of them don't use computers, don't understand what this is all about, and are easily scared by technobabble and threats of crashing the economy because of digital pirates on teh intarwebs... In addition, alienating the American people and listening to lobbyists isn't something new, this has been going on for decades, across the political spectrum... People have become so polarized to think Democrats are evil or Republicans are evil that they fail to realize both parties are responsible for the mess we're in right now, because corporations and lobbyists have their hands in all of our politicians' pockets... The Republicans have managed to convince America that the Democrats want to take everybody's money away and grow the government into a state of socialism, where everybody's on welfare, and nobody needs to work because they can ride the rich peoples' coat tails... The Democrats have managed to convince America that the Republicans are evil and are bought and paid for like commodities on the stock market, their votes sold to the highest bidders... In reality, both parties are essentially the same at this point, the only difference is who they take their kickbacks from, and they've both managed to maneuver this country into a position where corporations have been given more and more rights as people, and people have had their civil liberties more and more restricted at the hands of corporate lobbyists, while Washington convinces us that it's for our own good and the American dream...

Smash & Grab?
By transamdude95 on 6/23/2010 11:03:12 AM , Rating: 5
According to Biden, downloading an album is the equivalent of stealing a cd from a retail store. So, where does this ENORMOUS discrepancy come from in the civil suits? I'm sure someone wouldn't be sued for $150,000 if they stole a cd from the Universal store.

RE: Smash & Grab?
By JasonMick on 6/23/2010 11:08:43 AM , Rating: 5
According to Biden, downloading an album is the equivalent of stealing a cd from a retail store. So, where does this ENORMOUS discrepancy come from in the civil suits? I'm sure someone wouldn't be sued for $150,000 if they stole a cd from the Universal store.

Reread the quote. He compared it to robbing Tiffany's not a retail store. So essentially he could try to justify multi-million dollar damage verdicts based on this statement, were the two really similar, that is.

Which makes it all the more ridiculous. Your comparison was far better... at worst pirating music is like petty retail theft.

RE: Smash & Grab?
By lightfoot on 6/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: Smash & Grab?
By JasonMick on 6/23/2010 11:33:47 AM , Rating: 5
Up to and until you start copying and distributing perfect copies of the product that you stole. The problem with digital media is that it can be reproduced perfectly and distributed cheaply. Thus your theft could potentially be equated to the theft of MILLIONS of CD's.

Eh? First of all I can't imagine even the most prolific sharers distribute "millions" of CDs. A few thousand -- maybe.

But again, those people are also committing petty retail theft. Are you an accomplice to that or enabling it? Almost certainly. But most P2P networks allow you to contribute just parts of the file so you are just one of several people adding to the crime.

Ultimately if everyone who got caught was merely charged the amount of tracks they downloaded plus some petty fine ($100?) that would work out the exact same.

Under your scheme, it seems like you would like to see each person charged hundreds of thousands of dollars, which is utterly delusional. Civil damages SHOULD be based on lost revenue, not some ludicrous concocted figure. Its logic like yours that has the RIAA/NMPR suing Limewire for $150B+ USD -- more than 15 times the amount the industry makes IN A SINGLE YEAR.

Also you fail to address the other more Orwellian provisions of this campaign -- outlawing P2P engine development (which can be used a legitimate distribution tool), outlawing DRM bypassing of content you have purchased, and "imminent infringement" -- charging you for acts you haven't committed.

What do you think about those measures?

RE: Smash & Grab?
By Golgatha on 6/23/2010 12:18:45 PM , Rating: 1
Hate to tell you but bypassing DRM protections is already outlawed (see DMCA). This is probably the main reason nearly every person commits IP crimes every day. I don't know very many people who download content illegally, but nearly every person I've come across over the years wants to know how to rip movies and music once they see what type of conveniences are accomplished in my home theater.

RE: Smash & Grab?
By JasonMick on 6/23/2010 12:33:01 PM , Rating: 5
I meant outlaw in the sense that it would make it a felony (criminal) offense, not just a civil one which the DCMA currently spells out. Hope that clarifies what I meant.

RE: Smash & Grab?
By ShaolinSoccer on 6/23/2010 5:02:45 PM , Rating: 3
Eh? First of all I can't imagine even the most prolific sharers distribute "millions" of CDs. A few thousand -- maybe.

And how many prolific sharers are there? If each one distributes thousands, wouldn't that add up to be millions?

RE: Smash & Grab?
By Fracture on 6/24/2010 2:23:21 PM , Rating: 1
A few thousand -- maybe.

Not only that, but take into account the nature of torrents and P2P transfers - each source contributes a chunk small enough to be considered sampling and protected under Fair Use.

While they claim that each person that uploads contributes to thousands of copies, the opposite is also true - that they contributed nothing but a small fragment to those people. Also, they can't prove which fragment was transmitted - it could have very well been the portion thats in the publicly distributed sample (replication is permitted).

RE: Smash & Grab?
By Solandri on 6/23/2010 12:14:58 PM , Rating: 5
By definition, each non-commercial pirate will only ever want one copy.

If you want to argue that a pirate is distributing thousands or millions of copies, then after he's prosecuted and fined, all those thousands or millions of people who downloaded from him should be legally indemnified from prosecution. After all, the culprit in the crime has already been charged and punished, and the victims financially compensated.

RE: Smash & Grab?
By lightfoot on 6/23/2010 1:04:09 PM , Rating: 1
Perhaps there needs to be a distinction in copyright law - if you take it that is one crime, but if you distribute it, that would become an entirely different crime (more severe and based upon the number of copies distributed.) And if you download a stolen item that would be yet a third crime depending on if you knew that it was stolen.

Much like other types of theft. If you steal a car that is a crime. If you sell (fence) a stolen car, that is yet another crime. If you knowingly buy (or take possession of) a stolen car that is yet a third distinct crime.

RE: Smash & Grab?
By just4U on 6/23/2010 1:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is trying to get people to connect the dots and view it as a crime or theft. It's hard to justify.

I do agree that if people are making money off of a copyrighted work then the copyright holder is perfectly in their right to seek compensation. That's reasonable.. but that's about it.

RE: Smash & Grab?
By Spivonious on 6/23/2010 11:23:36 AM , Rating: 2
The difference comes from the fact that you have an electronic copy.

It would be like going to the record store, opening the CD, copying it to your computer, printing 1000s of copies of the CD, and then leaving them in a box on the street.

RE: Smash & Grab?
By Solandri on 6/23/2010 12:24:14 PM , Rating: 4
No, it's like leaving your computer with a sign telling other people to make their own copies if they wish.

Look, say a thousand people download a $20 CD. By my reasoning, the song has been "stolen" a thousand times (I disagree with calling it theft, but that's another argument). Fines should be (say) $60 per person - treble damages for willfully infringing.

By your reasoning, the first person who copied the song made it available to 1000 people, so he should be fined for 1000 copies. $20,000 fine for him. The second person who copied the song also made it available to those 1000 people, so $20,000 fine for him. Repeat for all 1000 people. By your illogical reasoning, 1000 copies have turned into $20 million in fines, which is $20,000 per copy.

Congratulations - your faulty reasoning has created an industry which can make 1000x more money suing its customers than by actually selling its products to customers.

RE: Smash & Grab?
By Spivonious on 6/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: Smash & Grab?
By just4U on 6/23/2010 1:32:58 PM , Rating: 3
Or perhaps putting more value on their CD's to give people an incentive in wanting to own them. Music videos, Interactive content, Perhaps some freebie promotion on the artists site (or lowered ticket pricing to concerts) Hell cool branding on the CD/DVD is incentive to.. God the list is endless in what their able to do to make their medium viable.

Digital distribution gets it out ot the masses.. now you just got to figure out how to get them to buy the disc. It's NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!!!

RE: Smash & Grab?
By just4U on 6/23/2010 1:42:15 PM , Rating: 2
My whole point though Spiv, is once it's on the web it's now in the hands of Millions. You can't buy that sort of publicity and advertising which is absolutely FREE!! The entertainment industry is approaching this from the wrong angle when they cry the blues and most see that for what it is (I hope)

They lost the war in the digital age now it's time to adapt and turn it around but nooooo they continue to fight and cling to old ways that are no longer viable.

So easy, So Simple, why don't they see that.

RE: Smash & Grab?
By Spivonious on 6/23/2010 3:52:49 PM , Rating: 2
But it's already on the web. iTunes, Amazon, Zune lets you buy a song for $1. Pandora and let you listen before buying. They're trying their best and people are still violating copyright.

RE: Smash & Grab?
By zzeoss on 6/24/2010 3:20:12 AM , Rating: 2
One other thing to note, in relation to the article on arstechnica:
P2P lawyers tell judge: suing 5,000 "Does" at once is fine

If for one song there is 1 seeder, and 100 people downloading it, each of the downloaders are sharing it to 99 ppl (thus 99 distributions, in reality there won't be exactly 99 connections to all the leechers), altho they only made a ratio of 1.

RE: Smash & Grab?
By jthistle on 6/23/2010 11:38:06 AM , Rating: 2
Also, when you download through bittorrent you are simultaneously uploading to other people as well. So even if you only ever download for your consumption they will spin as though you are giving the download to many other people.

RE: Smash & Grab?
By nafhan on 6/23/2010 12:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
It's like stealing from Tiffany's because:
A - diamonds and music are way overpriced
B - "they" will go after you for $150,000 for taking them
C - Joe Biden says it's wrong

That's all I can come up with...

RE: Smash & Grab?
By superstition on 6/23/2010 4:42:35 PM , Rating: 2
The diamonds come from a cartel.

Cartels are supposed to be illegal in the USA.


RE: Smash & Grab?
By IcePickFreak on 6/23/2010 1:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
Oh shoot, here I was thinking he was just talking about how the government operates.

This makes no sense
By theslug on 6/23/2010 11:31:28 AM , Rating: 3
So if I typed "torrent daft punk" into Google, looked at the results, closed the window, and then went to the store and bought a Daft Punk cd, that would be still considered imminent infringement? You cannot charge someone for something they did not do. I'm pretty sure that's in the constitution somewhere.

RE: This makes no sense
By xpax on 6/23/2010 11:51:30 AM , Rating: 2
Really? What about "conspiracy to commit murder"? You haven't actually killed the guy, but they're charging you because you were thinking about it.

RE: This makes no sense
By theslug on 6/23/2010 11:58:31 AM , Rating: 2
True. But there's a big difference between drawing up plans to commit murder vs. just typing something into a search engine.

RE: This makes no sense
By xpax on 6/23/2010 12:24:54 PM , Rating: 1
Perhaps -- what if you were googling "ammonium nitrate" and "how to make bombs"? Do we go after those people too? Where does it end?

Personally, I think that we've been moving in the direction of prosecuting people for thought crimes for a while now.

Those "Catch a Predator" things (and no, I'm not defending pedophilia -- I just think this is an abuse of the legal system/peoples rights) strike me as the same sort of thing. They entrap a guy over the internet, then show up at his house to arrest him for doing nothing illegal. He was speaking with a cop or TV person on the internet -- not a minor. No crime has actually occurred, nor was there the possibility of a crime occurring since no minor was actually involved.

People think that's OK. Given that precedent, why would people care if you went after copyright predators in the same sort of way?

RE: This makes no sense
By Nutzo on 6/23/2010 12:39:46 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, they usually commit several crimes, such as sending p*rn to a minor (it may not actually be a minor, but they think it is), or ask for/send kiddy pr*n which is a crime.

RE: This makes no sense
By Assimilator87 on 6/23/2010 1:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
Quick! Delete your post before the Feds come!

RE: This makes no sense
By jeff834 on 6/23/2010 2:57:08 PM , Rating: 2
You have clearly never seen To Catch a Predator. They don't show up at someone's house and arrest them for talking to supposed children on the internet. They set up a sort of sting operation where they pretend to be children and invite pedophiles over to a house and arrest them when they show up. So for instance if 2 pedos talk to the TCAP "minor" and make arrangements to meet this minor at his/her house, but one shows up and the other does not, they arrest the one that does show up (half the time with condoms), but don't go and find the one who doesn't show up. The thought of committing a crime isn't illegal, but intending to commit a crime, and taking steps to do so is illegal regardless of whether you actually succeed.

It's not a crime to talk about doing something, but when you take steps to commit a crime that can be criminal in itself. In the case of conspiracy to commit murder...if you and your coworkers talk about killing your boss its not a crime, but if one of you buys a handgun and you start plotting where and when you're going to do it that's conspiracy. As for searching for information on how to make a bomb, again not a crime, but if you buy 1000lbs of fertilizer and start making something in your basement that's a crime. Again your crime does not have to be successful for you to be a criminal. Take the case of Faisal Shazad (sp?), he fully intended to blow up time's square, but he's an idiot who doesn't really know what he's doing. His bomb didn't go off and no one was hurt, but is he any less of a terrorist than someone who succeeds in blowing something up?

My issue with digital thought crimes when it comes to piracy is that there is no good way to know you're planning on pirating something until you actually do it. You can't really outlaw p2p because they can and are used legally. Even if a vast majority of p2p is used for illegal things its still not right to outlaw them. I'd argue that a lot of crimes are committed with handguns, but that doesn't mean they should be illegal. I could download a p2p program, and do searches for pirated software, but that doesn't make me a criminal until I actually acquire that pirated software.

RE: This makes no sense
By Wererat on 6/23/2010 1:08:43 PM , Rating: 2
"Conspiracy to" crimes are only used in sane law where the planned act involves loss of life or other catastrophic harm.

This planned law is "Conspiracy to shoplift." What it really amounts to is the government wanting a foot in the door to knowing what everyone searches for always.

After all, once you've established that file-sharing an .mp3 constitutes sufficient grounds for a government to parse search histories, surely you wouldn't object to the government protecting us from anyone searching for violence, perversion, drugs and sedition as defined by them, right?

RE: This makes no sense
By marvdmartian on 6/23/2010 4:28:18 PM , Rating: 2
Simple solution, to foil this nefarious plan. Get all new bands to include the word "torrent" in their name!

FBI: "We caught you trying to pirate a music album! You searched for a torrent for a band named XYZ!!"
Handcuffed suspect: "Uh, no, dummy! I searched for information for a band named TorrentXYZ!!" ;)

Not that I support or condone piracy, but they're fixin' to find out that internet piracy is like a hydra.....for every head you cut off, 2 grow back in it's place!

I was all for Obama
By muhahaaha on 6/23/2010 11:26:04 AM , Rating: 5
I was all for Obama being president.

But now I have serious regrets.

Unfortunate is an understatement, that he is siding with big media crooks.

RE: I was all for Obama
By blckgrffn on 6/23/2010 11:46:35 AM , Rating: 3
This. More of this sentiment needs to vocalized so that some pollsters can report that this is threatening the grass roots movement that played a large part in getting Obama elected. That will tone down this rhetoric a bit.

RE: I was all for Obama
By Dorkyman on 6/23/2010 12:36:55 PM , Rating: 4
Those of us on the "other side" saw him for what he was--an empty suit good for speechmaking but woefully short of the managerial skills any small-business owner needs to stay alive.

He was an "accidental" president. Blacks automatically supported him, lots of people who thought it would be cool to have a hip black guy as president supported him, even middle america normally inclined towards McCain drifted to him based on the adulation of the press.

Now it seems everything he touches turns to cr*p. Hey, maybe the fact that he supports the RIAA means they, too, will suffer. Go Obama!

RE: I was all for Obama
By gorehound on 6/23/2010 5:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
I also was all for Obama but as my mom calls him,"nobama" I realize I should of listened to Mom.Even though I am 54 and know a lot I can now see Mom was right.
We all need to totally boycott that whole Industry.They want war we can give them a war with our wallets.
A lot of folks like me are going to get madder and madder at this whole RIAA & MPAA corporate big content krap.
They will never stop the flow of info.It is to late for them.
I hate these corporate asses.Take them down someone already.

RE: I was all for Obama
By marvdmartian on 6/24/2010 9:07:18 AM , Rating: 2
What's going to be funny is when the RIAA/MPAA, fully expecting that sales numbers will increase by having these laws pass, are suddenly dumbfounded when the see no increase, and very possible a decrease, to sales of their product.

Movie and Music industries are making record profits
By HrilL on 6/23/2010 12:03:38 PM , Rating: 3
Both industries have been making record profit year over year for the past few years. Yet somehow all this piracy is killing them?

Lets not confuse the Recording industry with the music industry because they're not the same. The music industry is bigger now than it ever has been. Not because of these middle men that think they're entitled to other peoples works. Who are the real crooks? Lots of new bands are giving their music away for free and make a great living by giving people a reason to buy other things that have some real value. Our Government shouldn't be propping up the recording industries failed business models. They need to innovate like everyone else if they want to stay in business.

The movie industry has made record box office profits for the past few years. They claim piracy is killing them. That is just not the case. It is just that they can't make a crap movie and hype it up and trick people into going to see it anymore. Also more movies are being made now then ever before. Seems like they can't stand actually having to compete in their industry.

Our Government needs to look at the facts and not believe some bullsh!t studies that have absolutely no facts to back them up.

By Nutzo on 6/23/2010 12:36:43 PM , Rating: 3
This is exactly the point.
The reason most large companies back Big Government Democrats and Big Goverment Republicans, is so they can limit the competition.
It's cheaper to pay off a couple elected officials to pass a new law that to have to change your business model & actually compete in the market.
If you look at Obama's record, it's Unions 1st, Big business 2nd, and liberal interest groups 3rd. Everyone else is not even on the list...

Government IS the problem, and until we drastically cut back what government has it's hand in, thing are going to continue to get worse.

By fastgirlfilms on 6/23/2010 6:03:51 PM , Rating: 2
Tell me what should the "business model" be for an indie film production? How exactly does one earn enough to at least cover the costs of the production and pay all the salaries, etc to those who worked on the film (to make a living). Film is not just about big companies. Those who pirate creative content should be mindful of who they are stealing from. At the moment, the notion is "it's there, therefore it's mine" prevails....

It's basically greed and ignorance on multiple levels. The buck stops ultimately at those who steal the content....and, it IS theft.

By HrilL on 6/24/2010 11:11:28 AM , Rating: 2
Well somehow this indie film director supports file sharing.

Maybe you should be a little more informed and not just believe in things from the past.

By fastgirlfilms on 6/23/2010 5:02:42 PM , Rating: 2
Well, when you discuss piracy, you aren't only talking about hurting the major studios. They do have many ways to earn revenue from their investments. Obviously piracy hurts them, but not as much as it hurts the little guys.

Films, even now, are not inexpensive to produce. Indie filmmakers who don't all have access to theatrical release windows, depend on DVD and increasingly legit VOD sales to make some revenue.

Our recently released film played in festivals, but then went to DVD, VOD. We have made it available in many territories around the world...a legit file costs as little as 2 bucks to view, yet it's still being pirated extensively. Just last week more than 6,000 links (that we found not including those in Chinese, et) and more than 1300 different ripped versions of the DVD and/or Blu-ray.

What galls me too is the fact that a number of companies, with Google at the helm, service up web ads for the pirate websites and companies like Sony, Netflix, etc sustain those sites through their ads. It's just plain screwed up.

Netflix carries our film and yet there's 2 pop-up ads for Netflix on a website that streams our film (illegally) for FREE!

Crazy and $%#ed up is not adequate to describe this mess.

By HrilL on 6/24/2010 11:13:23 AM , Rating: 2
you should also read this. I think you're looking at it the wrong way.

Obama Administration misses the mark again
By rob8129 on 6/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: Obama Administration misses the mark again
By AssBall on 6/23/2010 11:37:04 AM , Rating: 2
The White House press release was full of buzz phrases, but short on details.

What else is new? It's like we pay this administration to make speeches. Then when they do get around to legislation, they do the exact opposite of what their constituents really want.

By Mogounus on 6/23/2010 2:57:21 PM , Rating: 3
That was Obama's whole campaign... "I am Superman and I will give you everything you want for nothing. I'll just tax the rich." Amazing that people bought into all that crap. Now finally after almost 2 years things are becoming clear and his BS is being exposed... at least it wasn't longer.

By bugnguts on 6/23/2010 11:44:30 AM , Rating: 1
Though I don't share your disdain for the current president, not that I think he's a saint either, I agree with you completely Joe Biden would be terrible. I wish I could remember where the article is, but it showed the ties the VP has to the recording industry and it was scary/amazing. I looked forward to Assassin's Creed 2 on PC, but due to their strict online connect policy I chose not to buy it and will not until that is removed, if ever it is.

To bad the Democrats felt they needed an old white guy to go along with the young black presidential candidate, similar to the Republicans choosing a female for VP running mate. Neither running mate was the best choice, IMO, but because they wanted to sway votes we got a Dick Cheny II as VP now. A man with his own agenda to help his friends at the expense of America. I used to buy videos, but at $15-$20 a pop it's not worth it, partly because their quality seems to be lower now, so I rent once, watch it on my projector and call it good. To be perfectly legal and fly Biden and the recording industry the bird I will start having big movie nights and invite all my friends over when a new movie is released. The RIAA will probably convince law makers that this too is illegal, but util then it may be small but I've shorted you at least a couple of rentals a week. Tweet tweet watch the birdy ..|..
Oh note to Obama, if you don't leash the rabid dog of yours you will not receive my vote.

RE: Obama Administration misses the mark again
By sviola on 6/23/2010 12:45:57 PM , Rating: 2
We're getting closer and closer to a socialist society with bigger government watching everything you do

You clearly have no idea of what socialism is...I think what you meant here is a totalitarian government, where people have no rights and the government ruling everyone's life.

By Mogounus on 6/23/2010 4:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
Technically true but socialism and big brother go hand in hand. One of Socialism's direct results is big government and big government usually becomes overly controling as socialists usually think they know better than you about how to run your own business or life. So in the end the result is the same.

By Kaleid on 6/23/2010 6:30:53 PM , Rating: 2
It's not socialist..well, maybe for the top.

(Not that I'm a fan of libertarians either but Ron Paul is correct are people like Nader, Maher etc..)

By amanojaku on 6/23/2010 11:19:27 AM , Rating: 3
The bill would make P2P or BitTorrent client development a criminal offense if the distributed software was used for infringement.
Software can be used for any purpose. P2P software isn't inherently illegal. Blizzard uses P2P to update WoW. Businesses use off-the-shelf P2P clients to distribute software or other IP without having to pay for bandwidth.

I own disassemblers and hex editors, which can be used to hack software. Am I harboring "piracy" tools? I own a CD/DVD burner, which can be used to copy CDs. Am I harboring a "piracy" tool?

We fought these battles back in the 70's, 80's and 90's with cassettes, VHS and recordable CDs. Why do we have to keep fighting? P2P isn't illegal; distribution of copyrighted work is illegal. And illegal distribution of copyrighted work is not worth hundreds or thousands or dollars per infringement. You pirated a $20 movie and got caught? You owe $20, plus a small fine, say $100. Pirated 100 $20 movies and got caught? You owe $20 x 100, plus a small fine, say $100. You made content available? You pay a fine, say $100, and get this added to your record. Do it again and the fine goes up, like with parking tickets.

"Stealing" content online is nothing more than petty theft. These industries are not losing money due to piracy; they're losing money due to crappy content and a lack of interested consumers with money. Most of us don't have the cash we had back before the dot-com bust.

RE: Nonsense
By xpax on 6/23/2010 12:19:14 PM , Rating: 4
Soon they'll have to remove "Copy" from the right click menu in Windows Explorer. It's used far too often for piratical purposes.

RE: Nonsense
By TeXWiller on 6/23/2010 1:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
There should be another reference for the ACTA banning P2P software, if used by somebody else for copyright infringement. The wikipedia article does not, in my opinion, give the impression of ACTA banning P2P technologies in this way. The article does give the impression of ACTA banning anti-DRM software, however.

The kinds of ACTA declarations stated in this article related to the P2P software would really redefine the concept of criminal liability and guilt in a very anti-Rechtsstaat and anti rule of law kind of way, destroying the spirit of centuries of legal developments in the western world. The declaration would be trivially anti-constitutional in most countries of the world and would break UN and European human rights conventions as well.

I'm sure the NRA in the US would see the ACTA as described by the article as a threat from the inappropriate analogies of justice wielding politicians eventually.

Go Canada!
By chmilz on 6/23/2010 11:17:48 AM , Rating: 3
Our new copyright laws are about to go on the books, and although I'm not 100% happy with them (it'll be illegal to break DRM to make backups), at least they were smart and all lawsuits against individuals can not exceed the value of the item stolen in its singular form.

Torrented 1 track? Great, you can only be sued for $0.99.

RE: Go Canada!
By just4U on 6/23/2010 1:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
I was a little worried we'd get the shaft like they did in Britian but.. overall it's a pretty good bill. It looks at the rights of the consumer and the copyright holder and tries to address both their concerns (to a degree).

The only big NO NO .. (and it's always been that way) is don't try and sell stuff as a proper copy.. Then your actually taking money away from the people that made it. Canada is quite ruthless in prosecuting such individuals and always has been.

RE: Go Canada!
By n00bxqb on 6/23/2010 5:34:04 PM , Rating: 2
Our bill isn't too bad, but it's only a matter of time before one of our leaders caves into the same draconian laws that the US has. We're going down the same path, just at a slower rate.

By TheRedshizzle on 6/23/2010 2:40:36 PM , Rating: 5
1. Virtually everyone is a pirate.
2. In a functioning democracy, the government does what the people want.
3. The US Government is against piracy.

Ergo, the US is not a functioning democracy.

Of course both parties will agree on piracy crackdown, because there is only one party: The Bussiness Party™.

Bad Assumption
By lightfoot on 6/23/2010 11:20:39 AM , Rating: 1
Ultimately, it should be interesting to see how American taxpayers react to President Obama's decision to spend their money on efforts to prosecute them and try to choke out piracy at home and abroad

You assume that all American taxpayers are pirates. That is simply not true.

And I wouldn't worry about pirates paying for their own prosecution. It is likely that if they are pirating music and movies that they are NOT paying taxes (not federal income taxes at least.)

People who pay taxes can afford to spend ten bucks on a CD without whining about it.

RE: Bad Assumption
By xpax on 6/23/2010 11:46:57 AM , Rating: 1
People who pay taxes can afford to spend ten bucks on a CD without whining about it.

Further elaboration is required -- insert the word "STUPID" before "People".

Just because you can afford to waste your money on crap doesn't mean that every other citizen is as stupid. Some of us take issue with the fact that onerous provisions are placed on our use of said CD, and that it's 90% filler and 10% product. Some of us are tired of having been ripped off for decades.

And don't forget the genuine outrage many feel about increasingly consumer-hostile laws being enacted which have no basis in reality. Even the GAO said there was no cause for concern. You want to talk about whining? Look to the entertainment industry for that. Constantly bitching and moaning that they're losing money while consistently posting higher YOY revenue and profit.

And to imply that people who pirate media aren't paying taxes is insane. There is no correlation between the two, and I dare you to find any documentation to back up your inane suggestion. It sounds vaguely similar to the ridiculous claims by Apple aficionados who tell people that they hate Apple because they can't afford it (and ignore the fact that there are about 1.8 trillion completely valid philosophical/ethical reasons for said feelings).

RE: Bad Assumption
By fadedpapers on 6/24/2010 6:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
It is likely that if they are pirating music and movies that they are NOT paying taxes (not federal income taxes at least.) People who pay taxes can afford to spend ten bucks on a CD without whining about it.

Just because people have a paycheck doesn't mean they want (or can afford) to blow ten bucks on Lady Gaga's new cd. Especially when that cd can get scratched beyond repair, and they would have to spend another ten dollars to replace it. If only there was some way to magically back-up media purchases...

If a person doesn't have a job, chances are anything downloaded wasn't going to be purchased anyway if a download was not available. So, no lost revenue there.

Unless you're referring to tax evasion? Piracy =/= avoiding the IRS.

By xpax on 6/23/2010 11:34:24 AM , Rating: 2
This whole copyright thing is getting more and more absurd as time goes on.

The media industry has obviously locked onto the fact that politicians are stupid as hell. No matter what evidence is presented that the industry is losing nothing (or next to nothing) is constantly ignored and then swept under the rug.

At this point, I'm not even interested in copyright reform. I'll settle for nothing less than the abolition of copyright altogether for works of entertainment.

Perhaps it's time for another revolution.

RE: Absurd.
By Silver2k7 on 6/24/2010 3:39:47 AM , Rating: 2
Was it last year that Movie theaters sold more tickets then ever, atleast around these parts of scandinavia.

I guess it depends on wich movies that gets into the theaters that year.

One would think that all the theaters would be utterly broken now that piracy is actually smash and grab.... *rolls eyes*

If some bigshot politician like the US Presidant can't even see that there is a difference, thats a sad thing.

Two indisputable facts:
By Motoman on 6/23/2010 11:41:04 AM , Rating: 2
1. Nothing encourages piracy like DRM. DRM punishes *only* the legitimate consumer, and it has a 100% failure rate, and the return on this "investement" to the entertainment industries is massively negative, with no positive ever having occurred (and never will occur).

2. Outlawing DRM would cease the punishment of legitimate consumers and curb the desire (or need, in the case of DRM that prevents you from using hte product you paid for) for pirating anything. Entertainment industry margins would skyrocket as they cut the expense of DRM and stopped losing sales because of it. Everyone wins.

RE: Two indisputable facts:
By lightfoot on 6/23/2010 12:36:51 PM , Rating: 2
The correct solution is to crack down on piracy and eliminate DRM at the same time.

As you point out, DRM serves no purpose if the content is being used legally.

If you crack down on the illegal use of the media, then DRM should not be necessary.

By Annie Moose on 6/25/2010 1:19:24 PM , Rating: 2
The White House's vision is perhaps a prelude to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which will go before Congress later this year. The bill would make P2P or BitTorrent client development a criminal offense if the distributed software was used for infringement.

WHAT?! So because users of a piece of software use it for illegal activities, you're going to punish the developers?! Explain to me how that makes any sense at all! What's next, declaring e-mail illegal because e-mail scammers use it? Or maybe we should just declare all software development illegal because some people use software for illegal purposes! This is the most retarded thing I have ever heard in my entire life!

Up to this point, I was willing to begrudge them a few points for addressing something that, although exaggerated and misrepresented by them, is legitimately a problem. But THIS! THIS IS ABSURD! I had better be interpreting this incorrectly.

By hewuevancent on 6/27/2010 12:12:55 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think you are. What do you expect when you live in false democracies that run on worthless currency and elect a select few individuals who get bribed by large corporations to do their bidding while leaving the actual citizens with almost no say in anything? Logic doesn't mix well with capitalism, and as long as such an illogical and inefficient system is in place, things like this will continue to happen.

By TSS on 6/23/2010 12:14:25 PM , Rating: 2
There ya go for ripping on the dutch with the "speechcrime" of piracy.

Atleast we don't have thoughtcrime. yet.

Seriously though, what i wonder most is what are americans going to do about this? you have a president that keeps spending more and more money, is clearly in the pocket of the people who paid for his campaign and if anything has made the problems bush aggrivated, worse. What'll be the americans people response?

Probably vote republican en-masse next elections and make bush's kid president. again.

By TechIsGr8 on 6/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: Great
By Nutzo on 6/23/2010 12:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
No, he's doing what Democrats alway do, spend & grow government.

I don't know why anyone is suprised. If people would actually look at the results of Democrat policies (as opposed to what they say thier intentions are). it would be obvious where the problem is.

Easy Fix
By jexel on 6/23/2010 12:56:48 PM , Rating: 2
I dont know why this is so hard to deal with. Obviously RIAA and other intellectual property organizations that have not only politicians but ISP's in their pocket have means to cause havok of this nature which will punish pretty much everyone. I understand that IP should be protected, and there should be a good way to fix it. Thus my proposition to the record and movie industries as well as a response to this enforcement agency:

Fact: No one can stop piracy. There are people in the world that enjoy the challenge of cracking your protection. They also enjoy sharing their work with the world for free.

Fact: If it is easy to obtain with relatively low risk, people will attempt to get their music, movies, software, whatever.

Fact: There is a lot of utter crap that is polished by marketing departments that lead to eventual dissapointment of the consumer leaving a bitter taste in their minds which possibly will affect buying anything further from that company, which will lead to less money in the future for that company.

Suggested fix: Obviously the RIAA and other groups are able to obtain lists of IP addresses of P2P files being shared or downloaded by other people. This data can be linked back to the person using that IP address with the exception of open wireless access points.

Set up a policing agency which all companies that want to have their products enforced contribute to.

Give this policing agency the power to work with all ISP's to obtain information to enforce their customers rights to protect their intellectual property.

Instead of spending millions of dollars lining lawyers and politicians pockets, get a bill passed to make downloading files an offence like a parking ticket that has enforcable reprocussions such as having your internet disabled, and fines from the local county you live in.

Make a REASONABLE fine in the range of 25.00 per violation found. This is something that the consumer will be more willing to pay than some random 2-4 thousand dollar fine per song.

This will wake up parents to enable them to police their kids actions, as well as sting the pockets of the every day consumer that are downloading illegally.

Enable the fees to have a percentage of the fine go to the local law enforcement policing the laws, a portion to the ISP's for the work they will have to do to enable better IP tracking and data mining on request, and the bulk of the remaining fine going back to the owner of the intellectual property. Billing 10 million people 25$ is much better than billing 5-10 actual prosecuted people 100k+ dollars.

Getting a record fine to a consumer that will NEVER make the amount of money to pay back the fine in their life doesnt pay your lawyer fees, nor does it do anything but turn your consumers against you.

I am sure there are all sorts of logistics that would have to be able to be put in place to enable this suggestion, as well as a ton of flaming posts that will thrash this, but think about it before posting, and post constructive criticizm not "THIS IS STUPID, U SUK" as this does no good.

My 2 cents.


Something Missing ?
By wempa on 6/23/2010 1:02:34 PM , Rating: 2
Such efforts have shown mild success. After lots of threats against the Swedish government by the U.S., the European Union nation finally tried the site's admins last year and found them guilty.

The EU tried the Swedish government site's admins ? Was something left out here ?

By fastgirlfilms on 6/23/2010 4:11:38 PM , Rating: 2
As an indie filmmaker whose recent film has been victimized by fairly rampant online piracy, what is most troubling for me is the indirect way a number of major companies (ironically Sony and Netflix) among them, have no qualms in having their advertisements appears on web sites that feature infringing download links and actual links of pirated films.

Technology exists to vet these websites, but no one cares to. One is never going to stop P2P file sharing, but there is something tangible companies can do to cut off the income given to pirate website via advertising (Google AdSense and more). Here's a link to my blog documenting what I've discovered with regard to own film and I'm sure every other film released as well:

So far, despite numerous attempts to contact the various companies involved, I've yet to receive any response. The MPAA seems uninterested as well. Ironic due to the fact the film is being distributed in partnership with Warner in the U.S.

There are no easy answers, but if the illegal distribution of digital content continues to grow unabated, I think it will really hurt the small filmmakers and artists who don't have the funds to weather the storm (nor the theatrical release windows to generate other income).

Onward and upward!

thought police
By tharik on 6/23/2010 5:01:09 PM , Rating: 2
so, if I search for something on the web like "torrent daft punk"
is the search engine I use breaking the law for giving me the information?

By missiworld on 6/23/2010 7:36:16 PM , Rating: 2
What really bugs me about all of this is that you can be persecuted under a "thought crime". How Orwellian are we going to get, America? It should never be illegal to think something--and that includes simply looking. If you have not carried out an actual crime, you should not be punished for it. Thinking about the crime is not committing it. But no one will listen to kids like us on the internet. The government listens to lobbyists and whoever can pay them the most. How sickening.

More Smoke and Mirrors..
By METALMORPHASIS on 6/23/2010 10:27:57 PM , Rating: 2
Just my two cents.

Isn't that picture wrong?
By YashBudini on 6/23/2010 11:17:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yo Mick,

Shouldn't the Obama flag have the international "not" sign in front of it? Unless you think he's the one pirating you?

Need anymore reasons?
By YashBudini on 6/23/2010 11:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
Time to return to the old fashioned LP. Buy them new on super high quality vinyl or in a second hand shop. Get music that hasn't been reissued because greedy record companies decided they can't make enough money. Create your own MP3's for your own enjoyment with little more than onboard sound, should be more than adequate for MP3 quality. You know all that music you loved 20 years ago? You probably still do.

By derricker on 6/24/2010 2:00:34 AM , Rating: 2
Do Americans ever plan to take back their country from corporate fascists?

A problem with all politicians
By jabr on 6/24/2010 5:14:31 AM , Rating: 2
Just in case you think this is a problem with Obama, I'd like to point you to

Corporations should not have unrestricted, free speech rights, regardless of which party is in power. For example, I think a great law would be one imposing civil penalties on any corporation (or industry cooperative) that knowingly lies to the public.

By Eugenics on 6/24/2010 11:40:44 AM , Rating: 2
The RIAA, MPAA and supporters are terrorists. They are so blinded by the pursuit of money the only solution is a bullet to the head for them.

Quantum Effects
By Zetribe on 6/24/2010 9:21:14 PM , Rating: 2
Since we are dealing with the shuffling of electrons I like to think of this in a quantum way. Until the download is observed it exists in a state where it is simultaneously pirated and not pirated. It is the observation by the MaFiAA that collapses the event into an act of piracy. It's all their fault dont you see?

Sad Day
By wakethedead on 6/25/2010 1:35:26 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I find that piracy isn't a huge issue in America at this point in time.
I think that Obama is wasting tax payers money and time trying to fix the inevitable. People still steal even though it is illegal.. so what makes them think that will make people stop pirating? It won't. It never will. Murder is illegal, but you don't see murderers stopping and thinking to themselves "Gee I could get arrested for this. Maybe I shouldn't kill this innocent person." NO!
Obama is wasting his time.
The money that is being put into this nonsense should be going to.. uhh.. I don't know.. THE RECENT OIL SPILL !!!! That is a HEALTH HAZARD !! I don't see people getting sick from PIRACY!! Citizens don't get lung disease from breathing in fumes from Torrenting!! This whole thing makes me sick. Focus on the real problems at hand. Obama needs to stop pretending that he is a real president.
Can we get a do-over election please?

By TheLolocaust on 6/25/2010 11:40:33 AM , Rating: 2
All those poor, gullible, people who believed/got suckered into voting for Obama should realize the colossal mistake they made....At least the voters that can actually count to their own IQ.


By hewuevancent on 6/27/2010 12:01:44 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with the people who say that piracy is theft. I mean, sure, nobody is actually having their physical property taken from them, but if you would have just bought the product, they would have had your money! That's basically theft. They could have benefited from your purchase.

Wait... oh no! That must mean I am a thief because when I went to Walmart today, I bought a product that was also sold at other stores! They could have had my money if I went there instead! I hope they don't catch me!

No, but seriously. Capitalism and logic will never go hand in hand. Only once humans move on from this frail and illogical system that uses currency and only hinders progress will they truly be successful. Piracy forever.

By alteredbeat on 6/27/2010 10:59:34 AM , Rating: 2
they sell only DRM-free MP3s. Maybe their lobbyists have been working the RIAA hard.

the new law may be good and bad
By Dtprodromos on 6/28/2010 9:24:23 AM , Rating: 2
For me it's not so much if the law is correct or not, but mainly if justice is restored.

If, for example, music is about to be sold the main reason for the flow of cash is the artist and because of him many people can earn some money. So it is the artist who should be paid first and get the biggest piece of the pie. Most of the time we have a bunch of lazy useless fellows who whine because they lost the goose with the golden eggs, although their role about the product is only supportive and not substantial.

Secondly not even the artist and for that matter any kind of working person should claim indefinite compensation of a certain amount of labor. Granted, not all kinds of labor are the same, but every work can be quantified if there is good will and common sense. If there is a tendency to exploit one's work in order to impose other people to pay needlessly(hidden in any kind of self-contrived excuses) this is also bad for the economy.

Thirdly, there should not be a huge gap in the compensation one receives for his/her work according to the work-hours one spent for the job. Even if someone's job does not require high expertise this does not mean he/she should earn 100 times less(or even less sometimes), because the other guy just thinks his/her work is so much more important.

And last but not least measures should be taken, so that the transactions through the web are safe, so much so, that one would rather trust ones's secrets to the web than to his/her best friend. This is a new economy emerging and if we keep ignoring its demands we may find ourselves isolated by other wiser guys that have done the self evident.

Would the new law help? In some ways yes, in some others probably not. In the new economy we want the working and creative people to prevail and not be servants of the lazy and the useless. Would we succeed? If we do not stick too much to our self-importance, and be aware that our personal well-being passes through the collective prosperity, we may have a real chance to succeed. Otherwise, we will keep boiling in our idiocy, keep bringing new laws to save the economy and keep arguing useless arguments about this or that thesis, when the first thing we should have done is pay a visit to a psychiatrist.

Sensational Journalism (again)
By jdietz on 6/23/2010 11:58:28 AM , Rating: 1
Okay, READ the thing that prompted this article (PRO-IP act implementation plan). There is one mention of file-sharing. ISPs are not mentioned at all. Most of the provisions are aimed at information sharing between stakeholders (IP owners) and the government. The rest is related to counterfeit goods, such as CDs, DVDs, computer chips, drugs, videogames, etc.... I think R4s would fall under the scope.

Ideas are "intellectual property" as well as works of art. The PRO-IP implementation plan seems aimed at protection of patent rights rather than copyright.

Officially ticked off.
By HostileEffect on 6/23/2010 1:36:42 PM , Rating: 1
See below for my two dollars of an opinion.

Its said that people don't care about an issue until it impacts them on a personal level. I am sick and tired of hearing all the bitching about how piracy is the doom of the industry and used games must be banned!

I'm aware the article is about the MP/RI-AA, music and movies but I can only relate to games. I don't have cable or satellite TV, its too expensive and the media sucks.

I'm tired of owning a license and not a copy, a license to a game or movie that has been stupefied for people too lazy to think. I am tired and done with all forms of DRM. I used to tolerate disc checks and CD-keys but now software phones home, has activation limits, or is permanently bound to an account on a program like Steam.

I refuse to support any developer or publisher that treats the fans of their games like peasants and petty thieves, I'm looking at you Activision. I love Starcraft and the second game looks great but I refuse to send money to someone suing gamers.

I think this is the first time I like one of Jason Mick's articles but, unfortunately for the gaming industry and movie industry, I refuse to accept this last stink from them.

Started PC gaming at age two, got hundreds of games in the collection even the old Overkill episodes on 5" floppy. My Crysis box is showing a little age now and I think its time to exit gaming until the industry stops acting butt hurt over piracy.

I guess it was a good 18 years, learned how to build and maintain computers, repair electronics, and build a full spectrum of useful and questionable devices.

Among the games I planned on but will not be buying or pirating: Brink, God of War, The Whitcher, Mafia, Fear 2&3, Mass Effect, Civ 5, Deadspace, Bullet storm. Some of these games are trilogies.
As for movies, Babylon AD, A-Team.

I could go on and on about how it is similar to make other things illegal like inviting a friend over to watch movies, satellite TV, play games, carpool, lone a book, lone a lawn mower, or even shovel someone else snow, just for good measure, don't let anyone build anything themselves or they could cost someone a sale.

Developers and publishers, keep your games, movies, and DRM, I don't need it. You are killing your own industry with your "war on piracy" and in the words of our great Duke, the King of action, "Blow it out your ass.".

I take my leave from gaming until this industry can get its act together. Maybe I'll take up gardening as a new hobby.

How about a crackdown...
By masamasa on 6/23/2010 2:26:18 PM , Rating: 1
How about announcing a crackdown on government spending instead, terminating funding for useless programs and other crap that nobody gives a shit about (both Canada and the US). I can't say I'm much of a pirate, but the more the government keeps blowing our hard earned tax dollars, the less inclined I am to pay for anything and the more motivated I'll be to take it.

Oh wait...what am I thinking...a crackdown on government spending????!!! *daydream*

By Sweet City Jesus on 6/23/2010 4:19:06 PM , Rating: 1
"Remember when anti-trust was the thing,
Now you're set up for downloadin' Sting,
Treatin' payin' customers like criminals,
Pens filled up with music nerd animals,
Buyin' off senators left and right,
My vote doesnt count in this fuckin' fight,"

This is sad, and the people actually supporting this shit are mental.

By smilekeanusmile on 6/24/2010 10:45:19 PM , Rating: 1
This is totally different from smashing a window and stealing jewelry. How the heck do you think Steam can release all these games for so cheap?? Because it's freakin digital. The costs associated to provide the content is super cheap to produce a copy of the product. Will there ever be sales at Tiffany's that reduce their products to less than 10% what they are actually worth?? What's that? It's not the same thing? Yah no shit Biden. Let's freaking enjoy the benefits of digital software and not apply outdated laws to innovation. There is simply no point. Make new laws and adapt to work with the benefits of modern technology. Steam is doing it and doing great. I mean seriously what is the problem?

What Massive Piracy Crackdown?
By YashBudini on 6/24/2010 11:52:16 PM , Rating: 1
I thought Obama likes banks.

By digitalPirate on 6/26/2010 9:36:39 AM , Rating: 1
they can go fuck them selfs and try but they will not get, stop them all only give the companys better reason to charge more for there shit ever go see a movie ??? it's god dam 50$ just to see one thats with discount!!! they blame it on Pirates when real reason is GREED Pirate's are the anti-bodies mother fuckers

Ouch !
By Beenthere on 6/23/10, Rating: 0
By Daniel8uk on 6/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: Good!
By xpax on 6/23/2010 11:54:13 AM , Rating: 4
Of course. Terrorists get no financial support from say, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, etc. They aren't funded from sales of heroin, opium etc.

It's totally pirated movies that made 9/11 possible!

RE: Good!
By spread on 6/23/2010 12:20:27 PM , Rating: 5
The people who are in power know what is best for us, if they didn't then why would they be there?

Because their daddy / partner in crime / drinking buddy was the former president / chairman / CEO and was able to get them the job by spending lots of money on hope and change marketing / greasing some politician's pockets / rigging an election.

Applies to most big fish in the pond.

It's clear that most money that funds terrorism comes from Russia and that most piracy is done in Russia, hence it's a good move from the government. It would be even better if every computer sold was locked down so that only DRM items could be played we would all be safer and the terrorist's wouldn't have any more money and then we would all be safer and have more freedom.

Hey Miss South Carolina, you learned about full sentences!

“I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uhmmm, some people out there in our nation don't have maps and uh, I believe that our, I, education like such as uh, South Africa, and uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and I believe that they should, uhhh, our education over here in the US should help the US, uh, should help South Africa, it should help the Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future, for us.”


RE: Good!
By Daniel8uk on 6/23/2010 2:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
That made me cringe.

Btw what I wrote was sarcasm.

I agree with the points you made, the system is so corrupt now I cannot see away out of it. It really isn't what you know, but who you know, and perhaps more importantly who you'll fight for.

If you'll fight for the people you've got no chance of getting into any position of power.

RE: Good!
By daInvincibleGama on 6/23/2010 2:03:56 PM , Rating: 1
LOL. It actually worked. Good Job.

I thought it was obvious but I guess not lol.

The rest of you, DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.

RE: Good!
By NicodemusMM on 6/23/2010 4:37:26 PM , Rating: 1
The people who are in power know what is best for us...

... big companies.. are just looking out for us...

It would be even better if every computer sold was locked down.. and then we would all be safer and have more freedom.

1/10 Fail Troll.. at least I hope this was a troll. Brainwashed fool. It's unfortunate that the privilege to vote isn't a accompanied by a test proving you can think for yourself. There is no RIGHT to vote... and you're a perfect example why.

RE: Good!
By Daniel8uk on 6/23/2010 5:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
I think your fail is bigger, after all you failed to spot the glaringly obvious ;)

Vote or not, it doesn't really matter. I believe the Alvin Greene farce sums up that for you.

RE: Good!
By ijostl on 6/24/2010 2:56:38 AM , Rating: 1
Daniel, you're too funny.

Dear World Leaders,
As a layperson of modest intelligence reporting from the trenches, I must confess the comparison Honorable Mr. Vice President of the United States of America made to smash and grab is a viewpoint even the most base of my classmates recognize as implausible.

With all due respect sir, and besides the fact that when comparisons are made, mistakes are made; here's why the following verbatim comparison can't work:

"This is theft, clear and simple. It's smash and grab, no different than a guy walking down Fifth Avenue and smashing the window at Tiffany's and reaching in and grabbing what's in the window."

Because if it were the same thing, thousands of people would be smashing the window at Tiffany's and reaching in and grabbing what's in the window.

To treat it the same therefore, would be unfair; and therefore a mistake - if one cares about such an abstract concept as fairness. I do. I think most people do.

Here is what I present as a better idea:
Each and every movie studio offer the equivalent of 0.49¢ download low-res movies, and 0.99¢ hi-def versions. Very low overhead and distribution costs, allowing those who are too poor to commit to monthly membership fees to still have the opportunity to pay for movies, and also provide them with the opportunity to feel they themselves are being fair.

I realize this is not the ideal profit situation, yet our leaders need to show benevolence towards those whose modest incomes put them in a class so far removed from the understanding of those who enjoy more affluent cognitive systems. I don't think people expect the upper classes to think like laypersons, but I think they expect our aristocracy to show at least a semblance of concern for the plebeian situation.

Eventually I like to think it will all move forward to an honor system.

Thank you,

RE: Good!
By zzeoss on 6/24/2010 3:31:07 AM , Rating: 2
Because if it were the same thing, thousands of people would be smashing the window at Tiffany's and reaching in and grabbing what's in the window.

Actually ... it will take a while but soon enough there will be no shop windows left in the world.

"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Latest Headlines
The Samsung Galaxy S7
September 14, 2016, 6:00 AM
Apple Watch 2 – Coming September 7th
September 3, 2016, 6:30 AM
Apple says “See you on the 7th.”
September 1, 2016, 6:30 AM

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki