*promote common sense!

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, February 29th, 2012 10:47pm PST - promote requested by jonny.

No brainer.

yo ho ho

Nice to hear a realist, though sad his voice sounded so nervous. It sucks being afraid to speak the truth, plus I heard more than a couple snickers during his argument.

When capitalism became less of "how much profit can we make?", and more "look at how much we're not making!", it became an outright failure of a system.

99% of the people of the world are pirates? There's about one computer for every three people. My parents don't even know what pirating is. There are less than 10 billion people on Earth, not 50 billion. This guy's exaggeration makes it look like he just doesn't know what he's talking about.

Granted, copyright reform is needed. But I think it's a mistake to put it in a different category from physical media without recognizing that 3d printers are on track to become household items.

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

99% of the people of the world are pirates? There's about one computer for every three people. My parents don't even know what pirating is. There are less than 10 billion people on Earth, not 50 billion. This guy's exaggeration makes it look like he just doesn't know what he's talking about.
Granted, copyright reform is needed. But I think it's a mistake to put it in a different category from physical media without recognizing that 3d printers are on track to become household items.


My parents know what pirating is, but they aren't savvy or motivated enough to browse over to PirateBay, run uTorrent, PeerBlock, etc.

However, they ARE savvy enough to fire up YouTube, where they can find "infringing" videos that get around auto-detection by horizontal flipping, etc. etc. etc. The RIAA's and MPAA's of the world would love to point at them and the hordes of people like them and and say "pirates! Cough up $1000 for every song/video/whatever"!

In the meantime, I'm living in Thailand. Piracy is my default way of obtaining media. In many if not most cases, it would actually be very difficult or impossible to "legitimately" obtain said media. If that makes me an evil criminal, so be it. But I tend to think that it says much more about the distribution system being broken beyond repair and utterly antiquated than it says about the people like me. The real content creators need to stop listening to (and paying) the *AA's crying over spilled milk and start looking for ways to embrace (and fund themselves via) the pervasive and un-policeable internet, which will be the way to distribute their creations. The cat is out of the bag, Pandora's box is opened, the internet isn't going anywhere and nobody will ever be able to stay a step ahead of the pirates.

Maybe 3D printers will become a household item within our lifetimes, but we're a long ways off from Star-Trek like replicators.

He didn't make one substantive argument. His speech is very vague and generalized. The only thing I got from that was that he doesn't like the current copyright laws.

There is the world, then there is your parents...
But jokes aside, what he meant was the people who create the content as well as the people who watch it are pirates. If you have seen a video clip of a movie that is not directly released or endorsed by the copyright owner, then you are technically pirating. This is the point he is making; it's not about torrents of full movies, songs, etc; it's about the 30 second videos we watch and enjoy every day.


>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

99% of the people of the world are pirates? There's about one computer for every three people. My parents don't even know what pirating is. There are less than 10 billion people on Earth, not 50 billion. This guy's exaggeration makes it look like he just doesn't know what he's talking about.
Granted, copyright reform is needed. But I think it's a mistake to put it in a different category from physical media without recognizing that 3d printers are on track to become household items.

This is why pirating is so widespread:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, March 1st, 2012 2:52am PST - promote requested by JiggaJonson.

That was awesome.

>> ^Quboid:

This is why pirating is so widespread:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

upvote one hundred times if i could. None of these companies are thinking in a 21st century mindset of digital distribution, they're still thinking in terms of ye olde TV scheduling. The distribution method HAS to change.

In the real world, I can make a copy of a car from the tires up, and then drive it. I can copy a poem from my favorite collection and send it to my wife on our anniversary. I can write down a phrase from my favorite author's work, and put it in my wallet for inspiration. I still have my old mix tapes from the eighties and the Christmas specials I used to tape on TV. Nobody seems to want them.

A computer is simply a tool. If I try to paint my own copy of my favorite painting, I can do it. If I try really hard and practice for a long time, I might even get something that's practically identical. And I can use many tools to do it. I can take a photo of the other painting and put it out on a grid, and I can use lines or even a laser level to make sure my copy is exact. But at what point am I not allowed to use a certain tool to make the copy for my enjoyment. Where exactly is the line? Why can't I use a device like a printer to make my copy? At what point does my copy become illegal? I demand to know where that exact line is.

Digital information seems to be best represented by George Carlin's crumb paradox: if I split a crumb in half, I don't have two half-crumbs. I have two crumbs. In the same way, why does digital information, when I copy it, become two originals? At what point does all this craziness stop?

This man has nailed it. Besides fixing the law for digital properties, the consumer needs a reason to want to pay for the content he/she is accessing or downloading. There needs to be some kind of real value attached to buying the digital content, and not just because "it's the moral thing to do".

A good example is a site like Good Old Gaming. They sell old classic PC games without DRM. The real value is not just treating their customers right, but also adding things like soundtracks and wallpaper. I could easily pirate anything on there that they release, but I don't because they are offering me good value AND convenience for my dollar.

Everyone is a remix of a remix of a remix of a remix.

none of us are original

all we do is sample eachother all the time.

and it is a beautiful thing.

I agree with this video. I pay for some content online already, even though I know that I could be pirating it for free... Both options are just as convenient, but I DO think that the content is worth the money. Some will pirate that content, but then again someone always will.

I'd love to be able subscribe to HBO internet-only for 15$ a month if they offered. I think the industry will have to wake up some day. The days of TV are numbered.

>> ^Quboid:

This is why pirating is so widespread:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones


This too: http://thenexusnews.com/pirates-vs-paying-customers-its-everywhere/85452/

And for a laugh: http://www.stupidgifs.com/view/392/

its prity obvouse , the one things pirated content lacks is reliability and quality ( although often better than lagit stuff at the moment )

if publishers offer games music films as instant download load instant access on different pyament plans that span all media then they would make a total killing and allso remove the second hand market which is costing them way more than bloody general pirating.

for example I should be able to google a film and the top link should be to a websit for that film the website should allow me to

1) buy a phisical copy that comes with a poster and colector shit ( can be same price as blue ray now or more its a colecters edition for fans this would be the same for physical media companies would still make a killing of this as collectors and fans will still buy these for the physical item and promotions.

2) Allow me to instantly stream the film on-line for a set fee based on how old it is
under 3 months 5 USD for SD streem 7USD for HD/3D streem with ablity to watch it any time that week older than 3 months 3USD SD $5HD
Older than 6 months 1USD SD $3HD

3) have a subscription service for all films produced by all companies
£15 a month gets me full acess to all the above streeming and downloading and storing and play back on all platforms same time as they come out in cinema ( people go to the cinema because its the cinema/socail thing, not because of the film ( most people will watch films at home in the future)
£2.50 a month gets me full access to stream all films in SD and a discount on HD 1 off streems.

The whole point is that you make it conveant and price it so that everyone or each house gets it by default you allso link a socail aspect of it so people get there own account for the sake of comments and sharing stuff on face book , the social side is why multiple people in a single house would get it.

arrr>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

99% of the people of the world are pirates? There's about one computer for every three people. My parents don't even know what pirating is. There are less than 10 billion people on Earth, not 50 billion. This guy's exaggeration makes it look like he just doesn't know what he's talking about.
Granted, copyright reform is needed. But I think it's a mistake to put it in a different category from physical media without recognizing that 3d printers are on track to become household items.


99% of people who use the internet daily at home are participating in some form of copyright infringement, such as watching unauthorized excerpts of copyrighted works on youtube which are neither brief nor quoted for the sake of commentary. Or downloading and viewing images which were redistributed without the consent of the rightsholder. Or reposting entire news articles in forums. All online communities are full of copyright infringement. The vast majority of the content on the 'Sift is infringing too.

>> ^deedub81:

He didn't make one substantive argument. His speech is very vague and generalized. The only thing I got from that was that he doesn't like the current copyright laws.


Did watch the same thing? He clearly says that it needs to change because it isn't working.

- Vast majority of people is a pirate is some form. When everyone is breaking the law, we need to look at the law.
- His kids only know piracy because that is how they get the content... leading to the next point
- Content needs to be more convenient, which the content industry is not doing
- reference to a report done who's conclusion that copyright isn't working.
- copyright in physical world is different. Copyright in digital needs to be handled differently

Sure they are mostly generalized, but they are coherent points. If you want more, I'm willing to be the conversation was longer than 2:15 min.

Piracy is a moral issue. Theft is theft, and if you steal content, you're a thief. There isn't truly any difference between pirating content and lifting it from walmart. Now I see people justifying this as if they have some right to content. Somehow, they feel entitled to be entertained. I don't see that right in the constitution anywhere. Where does this idea come from? Neither do the numbers matter, they simply reflect the moral bankruptcy of this society. It is not a wrongness of the law, it is the sinful nature of people.

Piracy is not theft.

If you lift something from Walmart, Walmart loses an item of stock. If you download a TV show, no one loses anything tangible.

(It's not like me to disagree with @shinyblurry!)

>> ^jimnms:

>> ^Quboid:
This is why pirating is so widespread:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

This too: http://thenexusnews.com/pirates-vs-paying-customers-its-everywhere/85
452/
And for a laugh: http://www.stupidgifs.com/view/392/


I can't say I agree with that article. Particularly the last line: "Hopefully developers will start to understand this point and do what is right for the player and not what is good for their pockets." Nonsense, of course they're going to do what's good for their pockets and why shouldn't they? The point is that what's good for their customers is what's good for their pockets. That conclusion reinforces the point that the rest of the article disproves.

The gif is awesome though

The numbers that you're pulling out of your ass don't smell any better than the numbers that he pulled out of his.>> ^jwray:

arrr>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
99% of the people of the world are pirates? There's about one computer for every three people. My parents don't even know what pirating is. There are less than 10 billion people on Earth, not 50 billion. This guy's exaggeration makes it look like he just doesn't know what he's talking about.
Granted, copyright reform is needed. But I think it's a mistake to put it in a different category from physical media without recognizing that 3d printers are on track to become household items.

99% of people who use the internet daily at home are participating in some form of copyright infringement, such as watching unauthorized excerpts of copyrighted works on youtube which are neither brief nor quoted for the sake of commentary. Or downloading and viewing images which were redistributed without the consent of the rightsholder. Or reposting entire news articles in forums. All online communities are full of copyright infringement. The vast majority of the content on the 'Sift is infringing too.

As I said, copyright reform is needed. Also, the media companies have, for the most part, completely mishandled what should have been an incredibly profitable way to deliver their content. I get what you're saying about content creators spreading their own content. They're working on it! But running a business is an entirely different skill set, so distributing through a company that knows what they're doing (to the extent that they actually can pay you) makes more sense most of the time.>> ^MilkmanDan:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
99% of the people of the world are pirates? There's about one computer for every three people. My parents don't even know what pirating is. There are less than 10 billion people on Earth, not 50 billion. This guy's exaggeration makes it look like he just doesn't know what he's talking about.
Granted, copyright reform is needed. But I think it's a mistake to put it in a different category from physical media without recognizing that 3d printers are on track to become household items.

My parents know what pirating is, but they aren't savvy or motivated enough to browse over to PirateBay, run uTorrent, PeerBlock, etc.
However, they ARE savvy enough to fire up YouTube, where they can find "infringing" videos that get around auto-detection by horizontal flipping, etc. etc. etc. The RIAA's and MPAA's of the world would love to point at them and the hordes of people like them and and say "pirates! Cough up $1000 for every song/video/whatever"!
In the meantime, I'm living in Thailand. Piracy is my default way of obtaining media. In many if not most cases, it would actually be very difficult or impossible to "legitimately" obtain said media. If that makes me an evil criminal, so be it. But I tend to think that it says much more about the distribution system being broken beyond repair and utterly antiquated than it says about the people like me. The real content creators need to stop listening to (and paying) the AA's crying over spilled milk and start looking for ways to embrace (and fund themselves via) the pervasive and un-policeable internet, which will be the way to distribute their creations. The cat is out of the bag, Pandora's box is opened, the internet isn't going anywhere and nobody will ever be able to stay a step ahead of the pirates.
Maybe 3D printers will become a household item within our lifetimes, but we're a long ways off from Star-Trek like replicators.

So let me get this straight. According to God, it's ok for me to outright own another person, but its immoral for me to watch his videos without his permission? If he's my slave anyway, can't I just command him to grant me permission?

>> ^shinyblurry:

Piracy is a moral issue. Theft is theft, and if you steal content, you're a thief. There isn't truly any difference between pirating content and lifting it from walmart. Now I see people justifying this as if they have some right to content. Somehow, they feel entitled to be entertained. I don't see that right in the constitution anywhere. Where does this idea come from? Neither do the numbers matter, they simply reflect the moral bankruptcy of this society. It is not a wrongness of the law, it is the sinful nature of people.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You steal stuff all day long. Everyone does. The argument you are using is not even yours. Morals is a concept which you do not own. Companies do not have the right to fill our eyes and ears with content and then tell us the experience and absorption is copyrighted. I think the internet should have the same rights as a person. If the internet gets mad at us and tries to sue us for using the content the internet gives us then we'll see the internet in court and go through due process. >> ^shinyblurry:

Piracy is a moral issue. Theft is theft, and if you steal content, you're a thief. There isn't truly any difference between pirating content and lifting it from walmart. Now I see people justifying this as if they have some right to content. Somehow, they feel entitled to be entertained. I don't see that right in the constitution anywhere. Where does this idea come from? Neither do the numbers matter, they simply reflect the moral bankruptcy of this society. It is not a wrongness of the law, it is the sinful nature of people.

For the record, he also said that 99% of the people on the planet are pirates, and that there are 50 Billion people on earth. Both statements are off by about the same margin of error.

"His kids only know piracy because that is how they get the content."
"Content needs to be more convenient"
"reference to a report done who's conclusion that copyright isn't working." (In his reference, he states, "basically what they said was 'we have to change copyright.'")

What content? What form of piracy? How can it be more convenient. How can content be distributed so that it's more convenient while still turning a profit? How should copyright in the digital world be handled differently and how would that benefit publishers and consumers?

An example of what his kids do is not proof of a societal trend.

"I'm willing to be the conversation was longer than 2:15 min" (if that's the case, I might be willing to upvote THAT video).


>> ^curiousity:

>> ^deedub81:
He didn't make one substantive argument. His speech is very vague and generalized. The only thing I got from that was that he doesn't like the current copyright laws.

Did watch the same thing? He clearly says that it needs to change because it isn't working.
- Vast majority of people is a pirate is some form. When everyone is breaking the law, we need to look at the law.
- His kids only know piracy because that is how they get the content... leading to the next point
- Content needs to be more convenient, which the content industry is not doing
- reference to a report done who's conclusion that copyright isn't working.
- copyright in physical world is different. Copyright in digital needs to be handled differently
Sure they are mostly generalized, but they are coherent points. If you want more, I'm willing to be the conversation was longer than 2:15 min.

>> ^Quboid:

I can't say I agree with that article. Particularly the last line: "Hopefully developers will start to understand this point and do what is right for the player and not what is good for their pockets." Nonsense, of course they're going to do what's good for their pockets and why shouldn't they? The point is that what's good for their customers is what's good for their pockets. That conclusion reinforces the point that the rest of the article disproves.
The gif is awesome though


I didn't even read the article. I was looking for the picture of the DVD chart, and just linked the whole page because of the two other pictures on it.

If you read the language carefully:

"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."

It says it does not "easily" equate with the definition, it doesn't say it does not equate at all. Obviously there is equivilence between theft and taking something that does not belong to you. You can steal something without depriving someone of physical property. You can steal an idea, for instance. You can steal someones identity. You can also steal data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intangible_asset

Intellectual property is considered an intangible asset, meaning that while it has no real physical existence, the time or effort placed into it makes it a seperate asset. This includes intellectual property. Since the content creators have exclusive rights to their intellectual property, you are causing a loss to their intangible assets. Therefore, it is theft.

>> ^Quboid:

You already know stealing is immoral because you have a God given conscience that tells you right from wrong. As far as slavery goes, there is no specific endorsement of it in scripture. There were rules given to govern the treatment of slaves, because it was part of the socio-economic fabric of the middle east at the time. Slavery in those days was not like the slavery we had in America; being a slave in that day was more of a profession, a way that a person could earn a living and have something to eat every day, who might otherwise have perished.

What God gave us were principles, if followed, would lead to the natural abolition of slavery. This finally happened more recently in the Christian abolition movement. It is regrettable that it took so long, seeing as it had been in scripture for thousands of years.

Galatians 2:20

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

>> ^jonny:

I don't steal anything. Neither does "everyone" else. Some people actually do follow their conscience and don't steal content. Morality is a concept which is ingrained in all of us; you have a God given conscience that tells you right from wrong.

Companies have the right to do what is legal for them to do. You have the right to turn off your television set, take off your head phones, get up from your computer desk and do something productive in your life. You're caught up in the lust of the world:

Ecclesiastes 1:8

All things are wearisome, more than one can say. The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing.

Proverbs 27:20

Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied.

Your cravings for these things will never end. If it isn't one thing, it will be the other. You need to set your eyes on Heavenly things, on the peace of Jesus Christ. You need to turn from sin and turn towards Jesus Christ. When you start life sanctified by the riches of His grace and mercy, you will find true fulfillment.

>> ^Thumper:

I'm pretty sure you just lost all credibility by plagiarizing the bible. >> ^shinyblurry:

I don't steal anything. Neither does "everyone" else. Some people actually do follow their conscience and don't steal content. Morality is a concept which is ingrained in all of us; you have a God given conscience that tells you right from wrong.
Companies have the right to do what is legal for them to do. You have the right to turn off your television set, take off your head phones, get up from your computer desk and do something productive in your life. You're caught up in the lust of the world:
Ecclesiastes 1:8
All things are wearisome, more than one can say. The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing.
Proverbs 27:20
Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied.
Your cravings for these things will never end. If it isn't one thing, it will be the other. You need to set your eyes on Heavenly things, on the peace of Jesus Christ. You need to turn from sin and turn towards Jesus Christ. When you start life sanctified by the riches of His grace and mercy, you will find true fulfillment.
>> ^Thumper:

I don't think he's talking about the common definition of a pirate. If things don't change (and this has happened already), you will be a pirate for recording your sons 5th birthday while everyone sings Happy Birthday and uploads it to Youtube. Ooops! Copyright infringement.
Videotaping crowds of people at a state fair, the petting zoo, carnival attractions and there's a band playing a coversong at a venue at the fair. Their playing is picked up in your video. Pop! Pirate.
A girl decides to embarrass he boyfriend and secretly videotapes him singing horribly in the shower. Can't do that! Didn't pay a license fee to post that video.
Taping your babys first steps and happen to have the TV on in the background. The audio (and maybe some video) is captured and you get your video taken down due to a copyright claim.

All is as it should be, right?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'fred wilson, piracy, sopa, pipa, drm, copyright' to 'fred wilson, piracy, sopa, pipa, drm, copyright, yarrgh' - edited by Fusionaut

Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. As you pointed out, it doesn't easily equate. How you turn "not really the same" into "basically the same" is logic that I can't follow. It certainly overlaps with theft, and fraud, it's not black and white. However, technically, they are different crimes.

It's certainly neither legally nor morally justified. We'll never agree on where this conscience came from (God given or evolved from pack instincts) but I'm not arguing that it's not wrong.

All this has zero effect on reducing piracy. In the long, long term content producers will have to adapt, for example music album releases becoming promotion for profitable live shows and tours, which can't be stolen or pirated as they are about the experience of being there. Naturally, this won't happen quickly and there are a lot of people making a lot of money from 20th century content business models and of course they're going to drag their feet.

if you could wave a magic wand to clone a car IRL, no one would call that theft

I like to try to apply things to real life objects or processes instead of digital.

You can make an exact replica of a 1950s car (legal), but if you copy a PICTURE someone else took of a 1950s car you're in trouble (illegal). Or if you take the picture of a 1950s car (legal), the owner who spent all the time and effort on it is SOL if you just snap a picture of it and make a million bucks----but if it were a painting they painted and you took a picture of it to sell..they'd have you by your balls in court.

It's even confusing in the tangible world, but in general copyright is not used like a club to keep other people from producing things in the tangible world.

In the digital world, copyright is hard to enforce but it's more "chilling effect" is it being used like a club to take down things that might even remotely be related to their copyrights...whether or not it can be demonstrated or proven. Look at SCO over Linux, they have lost but they still have that whole case showing up in court even now...it took YEARS to get it settled and it's back in some form from what I read elsewhere. Youtube is full of examples of it being used to remove content that is not theirs.....they took down the music video MegaUpload guys paid for and put up using DMCA knowing it wasn't theirs because they "had an arrangement with Google/Youtube to be able to do so".

Tangible world of copyright has some sense of "reasonable expectation" when it comes to decisions and such.

Intangible world of copyright has no "reason" applied to it at any stage, it doesn't make sense to anyone. It's abused, the courts even allow it's abuse to go unpunished because THEY do even know WTF is going on with it. It's a crazy mess of finger pointing, denying access to distribution channels people want to be able to get content on (EA and Steam is a great example of this), price fixing (Publishers conspiring with Apple to price fix Ebooks to Apple pricing, Amazon is balking at this as are a lot of people), etc.

Hell the publishers are using copyrights and agreements as ways to lock in authors to prevent them from publishing themselves and are purposefully screwing with digital ebook sites to make it uncertain for non-affiliated authors. And it's not working for them as more and more authors are going self-published, BUT no one steps in and tells them to cut that shit out. The New York Times Bestseller lists won't even put Self-Pubbed author titles on their listing, even if they are best sellers. It's just another aspect of the digital world being treated like it's tangible and slow moving, the publishers are using their clout to try to force people into their "idea" of what it should all be...slow and expensive, with content creators getting less than 15% of the final sale price in most cases.

Corporate establishments should not be dictating policy.... they shouldn't be able to force distribution channels offline (netflix comes to mind, Amazon Kindle titles, etc) by dictating or forcing it to be unreasonably costly/restrictive in comparison to their own services (Hulu, Apple Ebooks, etc). They are forcibly carving a spot for themselves into the contracts and agreements, despite what's best for consumers and content creators and getting additional laws/policy to enforce it.

On the other side of dictating policy, we have corporations pushing to take away restrictive policies when it hurts their profits. And we end up with the housing bubble and economic crisis......

Laws and policy should be written with the people in mind first, society second, anything else, and corporations last. Corporations should be adapting to the will of the people and the laws of the society that reinforce their will, not telling everyone how it's going to be.

*quality *doublepromote

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, March 1st, 2012 4:48pm PST - doublepromote requested by gwiz665.

Your car analogy is accurate, but misleading. If the car were newer, then it would in fact be against patent law to make one on your own. The SCO case is, I believe, patent law, not copyright.

I don't get your argument regarding publishing companies of various kinds trying to make money for themselves and not paying artists much. This is the old "artists deserve more money" argument. Frankly, they don't. And I'm saying that as an artist. If you're an artist and you give someone your art in exchange for whatever percentage, then you've agreed to that amount and you deserve that amount, and no more. The fact is, selling art is hard. It might not seem that way because we see it everywhere, but having art sitting in your house or on your computer and making money off of it is just plain difficult. The easiest route is frequently to let someone else do that for you, and to artists who can't afford a cup of coffee, making some decent cash sounds like a good deal.

Artists who don't want to go that route are free to keep their content and sell it themselves.
>> ^Porksandwich:

I like to try to apply things to real life objects or processes instead of digital.
You can make an exact replica of a 1950s car (legal), but if you copy a PICTURE someone else took of a 1950s car you're in trouble (illegal). Or if you take the picture of a 1950s car (legal), the owner who spent all the time and effort on it is SOL if you just snap a picture of it and make a million bucks----but if it were a painting they painted and you took a picture of it to sell..they'd have you by your balls in court.
It's even confusing in the tangible world, but in general copyright is not used like a club to keep other people from producing things in the tangible world.
In the digital world, copyright is hard to enforce but it's more "chilling effect" is it being used like a club to take down things that might even remotely be related to their copyrights...whether or not it can be demonstrated or proven. Look at SCO over Linux, they have lost but they still have that whole case showing up in court even now...it took YEARS to get it settled and it's back in some form from what I read elsewhere. Youtube is full of examples of it being used to remove content that is not theirs.....they took down the music video MegaUpload guys paid for and put up using DMCA knowing it wasn't theirs because they "had an arrangement with Google/Youtube to be able to do so".
Tangible world of copyright has some sense of "reasonable expectation" when it comes to decisions and such.
Intangible world of copyright has no "reason" applied to it at any stage, it doesn't make sense to anyone. It's abused, the courts even allow it's abuse to go unpunished because THEY do even know WTF is going on with it. It's a crazy mess of finger pointing, denying access to distribution channels people want to be able to get content on (EA and Steam is a great example of this), price fixing (Publishers conspiring with Apple to price fix Ebooks to Apple pricing, Amazon is balking at this as are a lot of people), etc.
Hell the publishers are using copyrights and agreements as ways to lock in authors to prevent them from publishing themselves and are purposefully screwing with digital ebook sites to make it uncertain for non-affiliated authors. And it's not working for them as more and more authors are going self-published, BUT no one steps in and tells them to cut that shit out. The New York Times Bestseller lists won't even put Self-Pubbed author titles on their listing, even if they are best sellers. It's just another aspect of the digital world being treated like it's tangible and slow moving, the publishers are using their clout to try to force people into their "idea" of what it should all be...slow and expensive, with content creators getting less than 15% of the final sale price in most cases.
Corporate establishments should not be dictating policy.... they shouldn't be able to force distribution channels offline (netflix comes to mind, Amazon Kindle titles, etc) by dictating or forcing it to be unreasonably costly/restrictive in comparison to their own services (Hulu, Apple Ebooks, etc). They are forcibly carving a spot for themselves into the contracts and agreements, despite what's best for consumers and content creators and getting additional laws/policy to enforce it.
On the other side of dictating policy, we have corporations pushing to take away restrictive policies when it hurts their profits. And we end up with the housing bubble and economic crisis......
Laws and policy should be written with the people in mind first, society second, anything else, and corporations last. Corporations should be adapting to the will of the people and the laws of the society that reinforce their will, not telling everyone how it's going to be.

Please make this one interesting thread not derailed by shinyblurry. Exercise your right not to be trolled, people!

YO HO FIDDLE-DEE-DEE

>> ^deedub81:

He didn't make one substantive argument. His speech is very vague and generalized. The only thing I got from that was that he doesn't like the current copyright laws.


It's not that he doesn't like them, but that they are no longer fit for purpose...

Things become obselete. Usually because we create better things to replace them, but also because the world moves on and they cease to be relevant.

He's also not advocating piracy, but telling the industry if they adapated and made things easier for the consumer (much like the comic that was linked indicates), people would buy more rather than pirating.

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

Your car analogy is accurate, but misleading. If the car were newer, then it would in fact be against patent law to make one on your own. The SCO case is, I believe, patent law, not copyright.
I don't get your argument regarding publishing companies of various kinds trying to make money for themselves and not paying artists much. This is the old "artists deserve more money" argument. Frankly, they don't. And I'm saying that as an artist. If you're an artist and you give someone your art in exchange for whatever percentage, then you've agreed to that amount and you deserve that amount, and no more. The fact is, selling art is hard. It might not seem that way because we see it everywhere, but having art sitting in your house or on your computer and making money off of it is just plain difficult. The easiest route is frequently to let someone else do that for you, and to artists who can't afford a cup of coffee, making some decent cash sounds like a good deal.
Artists who don't want to go that route are free to keep their content and sell it themselves.


If the car were newer it'd be illegal to sell it. If you made one for your own use, there shouldn't be any legal recourse for the company to follow. It's been a long standing tradition that reverse engineering is allowed, only broken with the digital age and "no bypassing of countermeasures".

SCO is patent law, but they were selling licenses to "guarantee" people they won't be prosecuted once they won. They were selling something they hadn't even proven they owned yet...another aspect of the digital world that's broken. People without the legal rights claiming they do and infringing. Businesses do it all the time by taking other people's pictures and using them in their ads. Even Congressional members have been caught doing it....they don't understand why it's frustrating for a "normal" person who can actually be sued when it happens.

The publisher argument was to show that the traditional way of publishing is no longer relevant in the digital market. They are trying to muscle in after the fact, in spite of customers and in spite of self published authors to dictate what everything should sell for and how it should be sold. They are failing overall, but it doesn't change the fact that they are trying. They are also going after the libraries and trying to undermine the lending system the libraries have, after they've already sold them the goods. So here, the publishing houses are using their wealth and power to attempt to stop distribution channels they don't control much like the RIAA. NYT won't acknowledge self-published authors on their best seller lists, because of it's ties to publishing, in another attempt to discredit non-publisher affiliated authors.

The law is there to protect people, not the people who have corporate backing. A self pubbed author makes 70% of book sale price on Amazon, less than 15% if it's through publisher. The self-pubbed author pricing is usually less than 5 dollars...something around 3 dollars usually. And the publisher authors usually sell for hard back prices, 15 dollars or so. They want to force everyone to sell books at the 15 dollar mark, when self-pubbed authors have found that under 5 bucks gets them the most coverage AND money. So despite the evidence, the big pubs are attempting to influence the market and infringing on the rights (not necessary their copyrights, but I believe they are by attempting to prevent them from distributing it as the people want and the author wants) of the other authors to sell their works as they see fit by attempting to take over the market places.

The future of publishing houses looks like they will have to become small electronic based outfits that provide the author with an editor, cover artwork (relevant and beneficial to sales of book), and possibly facilitate audio book deals and other countries markets so the author can continue writing instead of marketing. For a 15-20% percentage of sales so they have an incentive to do it right and sell quantities at the popular pricing schemes instead of taking the lion's share and scooping up all authors so they get enough to stay afloat despite the content creators getting crumbs. But it still doesn't mean they should be attempting to prevent non-affiliated authors from being noticed and selling books as they see fit due to deals they make on behalf of all "book sales" they control or not.