DescentBB

I invite you all to please read this article by Jason Mick on DailyTech.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=23882
ACTA poses a greater threat than SOPA or PIPA, not only to Americans, but to anyone in the world. Please spread the news and join the fight for our liberties.

I was wondering if there was another back door access into this thing. The damn Dems keep sucking up to Hollywood and the Music Industry, so I figured that they would find a way to hide other nefarious backdoor attacks on our Internet freedom. The way Oregon's Senator Wyden was blathering code words out of both sides of his mouth right after PIPA and SOPA failed, set off a few alarm bells in my mind that this fight wasn't really over. Obama's not being principled for signing this. He's just another bought off politician out to make the elites happy.

Boy I hate being the voice of reason but you can't steal ★■◆● and think it's ok. I don't agree with how these bills go about enforcing the intellectual property law, but free music / movies is stealing. You didn't pay for it, you have no rights to it.

But in this context pirating music and video could probably be called civil disobedience, which normally wouldn't fly in any argument because it is against a private industry; however it becomes a valid form of protest in this case because the line between the music/film industry and the government no longer exists.

Need proof? Look up a nice little interview where Chris Dodd the current CEO of the MPAA (himself a former Senator from Connecticut) threatened to withhold campaign contributions to Obama because the White House shot down SOPA/PIPA. It went something along the lines of "Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake.". I believe this quote is a fine example of what is wrong with Hollywood and Washington. Chris Dodd is so obviously unqualified to hold the position of the MPAA CEO that it is obvious he was given the position in exchange for selling his vote and his power while he was holding public office; there is no other way someone so incompetent could land that position.

Not to imply that piracy is good, it is still a crime. But the main problem is that these forms of piracy are easy, easier than the legal options in fact. It is clearly possible for legal methods to be easier than piracy (eg Netflix), but the industry tries its best to kill/debilitate/devalue the legal options; so in light of that I don't see how they can really justify crying over how terrible piracy is.

Linked Article wrote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A computer is almost certainly an "effect" and online federal warrantless searches and monitoring certainly would be defined by most as "unreasonable" (though the courts would obviously have to agree).

When you put the contents of your web server on the internet, you are making it publicly available. Hence this is not "unreasonable search" by any stretch of the imagination. I call bull****.

On the other hand I'm not at all interested in granting the federal government ANY new powers. They've already overstepped their bounds, as well as pretty well demonstrating their total lack of appreciation for the limitations on government present in our founding documents.

This isn't about piracy. This is about a free internet. This law is way too broad to fight piracy. By its standards, visiting YouTube would be a criminal offense since YouTube contains a lot of copyrighted infringed content. Look up the part about "imminent infringement".

Then of course there is the part that would allow other companies to plant copyright infringed material on another company's forum or public site, shutting that company down for trial when they did nothing wrong. So this is also about a free market free from terror of the government.

Finally, nobody should like this idea of the government keeping constant tabs on your internet activity. Linking your real identity to your internet identity and then tracking everywhere you go to stop you when you break the law violates the fourth amendment. We do not live in a police state now, let us not be driven to live in one.

Zuruck wrote:Boy I hate being the voice of reason but you can't steal ★■◆● and think it's ok. I don't agree with how these bills go about enforcing the intellectual property law, but free music / movies is stealing. You didn't pay for it, you have no rights to it.

So you wouldn't mind having a monitoring device placed on you when you go to shop at Walmarts? How about a device hooked up to your car that detects when you speed or run a red light? Where does it stop? Music industry have the right to bring charges to those who violate their copy rights. Making everyone guilty before a crime is committed is just wrong.

woodchip wrote:So you wouldn't mind having a monitoring device placed on you when you go to shop at Walmarts?

well, if you did, just don't shop there.

How about a device hooked up to your car that detects when you speed or run a red light?

ever see the ads for Progressive Insurance and their 'snapshot' discount? Pretty much what you describe above.


on the music/film issue, I do believe online piracy stifles the system which produces artists and supports them. It also kills the industries that pay a lot of non-artists to do special types of jobs creating those works. It is a difficult thing to regulate, however, and yet another demonstration of how modern technology puts certain limitations and redefinitions into the concept of personal
freedom. It's an odd idea to many is that capitalism and individual freedom are not very compatable beasts, without a whole boatload of controls over the processes.

Perhaps the main problem people have with these is in the last hundred years copyright has been a constant march of stronger enforcement and longer terms while society itself has gotten nothing in return. Copyright has gotten so strong and misguided that I am beginning to seriously doubt that society is benefiting from it at all. Copyright is a form of monopoly, it was supposed to be temporary because like any other type of monopoly if you let it run long enough it will definitely cause harm to society.

Sure piracy can harm the artists who do deserve to be compensated for their work, but isn't the term getting a little ridiculous? Lifetime + 70 years? Is there any other position on earth where you can do your job in a few months to a year and then continue to get paid for it until 70 years after you are already dead? What if the terms for copyrights could also be applied to any other kind of job or intellectual property? Like say I went and fixed someones computer, should I then be entitled to collect royalties from them anytime they use their now fixed computer and from anyone else who fixes or uses a computer that has been fixed in a similar way for the rest of my life + 70 years? What about the stuff your teacher taught you in school, they were paid to teach you, but what if the knowledge was protected by copyrights? Then you would have to pay them royalties for their entire lives + 70 years every time you used your education for something...

If anything the terms of copyrights should have gotten shorter over the last 100 years rather than longer, because the speed that a piece of media can propagate through society has greatly increased. It is easily possible for a piece of media to reach almost all of modern society in less than a day now (or will be soon), and that pace is only going to get faster as the internet matures.

As usual, KROM comes up with the most logical argument.

As for patent fights, ever heard of this guy?

Richard Trevithick

Technically, he's the first engineer to invent the high pressure steam engine. There's no mention of this in his Wiki page, but the interesting back story is what prompted him to do it. Expensive patent royalties to James Watt and Matthew Boulton, who had locked up all rights to the atmospheric steam engine design and charged everyone exorbitant rates to use their engines. Trevithick essentially got tired of paying ransom just to run his business.

Zuruck wrote:Boy I hate being the voice of reason but you can't steal **** and think it's ok. I don't agree with how these bills go about enforcing the intellectual property law, but free music / movies is stealing. You didn't pay for it, you have no rights to it.

Next time you buy a video game and have to deal with their invasive and draconian protection schemes that trash your computer, guess who's getting punished? The user, not the pirate. Remember dealing with Starforce, Securom, rootkits and now the mandatory online connection schemes like Steam or especially EA's new version with no offline mode? Did that do anything to stop the pirates, or did these attempts just screw the paying consumer?.

Never in my life have I stolen any music or video games, but why punish legitimate users to make a profit? I sure resent the trouble that these schemes caused to my computer or my sanity. It doesn't bode well for continued sales of their products either. If they want to do business, find a better way to protect their property by not infringing on the rights of legitimate users and consumers or making the internet a closed garden just to protect their excessive greedy profits.

I actually don't have a problem with the DRM built into steam since it has always "just worked" without breaking anything on my computer, although I can't say the same for the added 3rd party DRM some companies require on games that you can get through steam.

What I do have a problem with is how it is impossible to resell a game you have purchased on steam (or even give it away) once you are done with it. A physical copy comes with no such limitations (or at least it used to be that way, game companies are investing heavily into DRM/activation/etc as a weapon against the used game market even more so than against piracy). I see the same problem deeply ingrained in the e-book market, and the situation is even worse with digitally distributed movies which the studios seem to want to prevent from ever happening at all.

Basically when it comes to digital goods I find myself asking "But what about MY rights?". This is where physical copies of some piece of media consistently and thoroughly beat digital copies; The copyright holders can't prevent you from selling, loaning or giving away your physical copy when you are done with it, they can't remotely disable your physical copy and prevent you from using it yourself, and they can't set a time limit on how long your physical copy will work. And there is no real reason for digital copies having these issues other than the copyright holders are greedy and hate aftermarkets. This is the greatest problem I have with "digital goods", we are denied many of the property rights we would have if they were physical goods.

I said I don't like how the bill enforces the law. BUT...the fact remains that taking copyrighted material that you did not pay for is stealing. Got a song off of Napster when it was king? I did, I certainly stole it. Got software off a torrent site? It's theft. I think the draconian steps this bill takes are completely wrong, but I do not, however, disagree with the notion that intellectual property must be protected. If you buy something, it's yours. But just because we have the ability to share these materials with relative ease does not mean that it's ok to do so.

If you buy something, it's yours

If that were true we won't have this dilemma. Copyright says it isn't yours. It says it belongs to the copyright holder. Whoever that maybe.

And for shame on you for taking advantage of file share when you knew it was wrong.

Krom wrote:I actually don't have a problem with the DRM built into steam since it has always "just worked" without breaking anything on my computer, although I can't say the same for the added 3rd party DRM some companies require on games that you can get through steam.

What I do have a problem with is how it is impossible to resell a game you have purchased on steam (or even give it away) once you are done with it. A physical copy comes with no such limitations (or at least it used to be that way, game companies are investing heavily into DRM/activation/etc as a weapon against the used game market even more so than against piracy). I see the same problem deeply ingrained in the e-book market, and the situation is even worse with digitally distributed movies which the studios seem to want to prevent from ever happening at all.

Basically when it comes to digital goods I find myself asking "But what about MY rights?". This is where physical copies of some piece of media consistently and thoroughly beat digital copies; The copyright holders can't prevent you from selling, loaning or giving away your physical copy when you are done with it, they can't remotely disable your physical copy and prevent you from using it yourself, and they can't set a time limit on how long your physical copy will work. And there is no real reason for digital copies having these issues other than the copyright holders are greedy and hate aftermarkets. This is the greatest problem I have with "digital goods", we are denied many of the property rights we would have if they were physical goods.

Good post. I heartily agree.

An interesting point about the used game market. I had never thought of that, but it makes a lot of sense.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:So you wouldn't mind having a monitoring device placed on you when you go to shop at Walmarts?

well, if you did, just don't shop there.

Not quite the same. With the internet proposal you won't have the same kind of choice

How about a device hooked up to your car that detects when you speed or run a red light?

callmeslick wrote:ever see the ads for Progressive Insurance and their 'snapshot' discount? Pretty much what you describe above.

Yes but it is not all the insurance companies nor is it required from Progressive. I suspect the smart pirate will simply move to a different venue. Much like the guy in a trench coat selling Rolex watches, you will have pirates selling their goods in a similar manner. People who want to trade or borrow games will simply do so through direct transactions initiated on forum boards, game chats and voice coms. Big time pirates will sell via sites set up in places like China or Russia. In short, much like the taxpayers paying into social security, the only people who will lose out are the honest ones.

As far as I know Krom, there is nothing in contract law that would prevent you from collecting a royalty every time a computer you repaired is used. (good luck getting customers)

Krom wrote:Basically when it comes to digital goods I find myself asking "But what about MY rights?". This is where physical copies of some piece of media consistently and thoroughly beat digital copies; The copyright holders can't prevent you from selling, loaning or giving away your physical copy when you are done with it, they can't remotely disable your physical copy and prevent you from using it yourself, and they can't set a time limit on how long your physical copy will work. And there is no real reason for digital copies having these issues other than the copyright holders are greedy and hate aftermarkets. This is the greatest problem I have with "digital goods", we are denied many of the property rights we would have if they were physical goods.

I do agree with you on Steam. So far, it's been relatively trouble free. But you've brought up a good point. What happened to OUR rights as consumers? I can buy a book or CD and resell it without hassle or fear of doing something illegal. But as you pointed out, if the product is in digital form, those bits can only be used by the original purchaser. You, and only you, own it in perpetuity, or until those bits vanish into the ether, in which case you are really screwed trying to recover them. You can't sell them, or even trade them because they come with a corporate copyright leash that gives them the power to nuke those bits, forever, if they don't like what we're doing with them. What's so special about digital bits that we've lost our consumer rights as owners of that digital property. Property is property. It's been bought and paid for. We should be able to sell to another on the secondary market, like people have done all through history.

Why do Americans buy things legitimately and get punished for it, AND still come back for more? Why do most consumers, who do the right thing and actually pay for someone's product, have to put up with the crap they come up with to deter thieves? I don't see the thieves getting stopped, only frustrated consumers that have to practically pull toenails to use said product. Are we all masochists or something? Personally, I'm to the point that if a product is so hobbled by copyright terms that it's nearly non-functional, or is going to cause me hours of my time just to get to work, I'm no longer going to buy that product. Video games have come to that point. Music has already passed it.

I see the same thing with the airlines. Americans who want to get to other places, and just like meek little sheep, are willing to put up with the most medieval of procedures just to get on a plane. Then they nickel and dime everyone just for the pleasure of being tortured. Can I have another please because I really have to be there like yesterday. All this to prevent the actions of criminals (terrorists) and make oodles of profit at the same time. Where do we draw the line from being a consumer to being a victim? When will people fight for their rights instead of just acquiesce?

No one said the digital age wouldn't have drawbacks.

Cute, and oh so ironic…

Where’s the little comic as follows…

Why is this acceptable?

Person downloading “free” music.

Why is this not?

Person leaving store with “free” CD in pocket.

Spidey wrote:Cute, and oh so ironic…

Where’s the little comic as follows…

Why is this acceptable?

Person downloading “free” music.

Why is this not?

Person leaving store with “free” CD in pocket.

Leaving the store with a "free" CD deprives the store of a physical piece of merchandise. Person downloading "free" music does not. Copying is not the same as theft (not saying it is moral or right).

Flatlander wrote:Leaving the store with a "free" CD deprives the store of a physical piece of merchandise. Person downloading "free" music does not. Copying is not the same as theft (not saying it is moral or right).

Sorry, I don't see a difference. A physical item is no different than an item stored as digital ones and zeros. If it isn't yours, it isn't yours to take.

Theft from a store steals from the store but doesn't effect the author/manufacturer. Stealing digital property indirectly deprives the author and the distributor. The damage done in digital theft is that it decreases the demand for the product. So you haven't taken $30 from the 'manufacturer', but you haven't paid them $50 either. But the technicalities aren't very important in the final analysis, IMO. Stealing is stealing. Stealing is not paying for something of value that another person has worked hard to offer. You don't pay, they don't eat...

The problem with “copying isn’t stealing” theory is very simple…when you buy a CD you only buy the right to listen to the content, you do not own that content.

Therefore it’s the content that is relevant…not the plastic disk it comes on.

Well said Spidey, I think that's what I've been trying to say this entire time.

There are many of us who would argue that the "right to listen/watch/use" concept as it's currently implemented is complete bull★■◆●, though.

Stealing a physical item deprives the store of a tangible sale; copying does not necessarily result in the loss of a potential sale, as the person doing the copying would not necessarily have spent the money in the first place (and it does not deprive the owner of future sales).

In fact, there are some musicians/artists/authors/game developers/etc. who encourage "piracy" in order to promote their works - a recent example.

I have over 200 CDs that prove that theory to be total BS.

So if I buy a copy of a famous painting, scan it and give a copy to a friend...am I pirating from the owner of the original?

woodchip wrote:So if I buy a copy of a famous painting, scan it and give a copy to a friend...am I pirating from the owner of the original?

You would be stealing (the right to control copies) from the author of the painting, assuming that the painting was still subject to copyright law. The author has the right to control the way that any copies of his creative work are handled.... So when he sells the painting, you are welcome to resell it as you like. If you copy it, the rights to the copy of the creative work are retained by the author, as I understand it, and you have to contact the original author about what he/she says you can/have to do about the copy - until he passes on his rights, for that individual copy - to you.

The thing with digital stuff is that the creative work and the medium are much more easily separated than before in history.

I agree that the root of it is how long copyrights should remain intact... because once they expire copying the creative work is perfectly legal and probably actually encouraged.

Now here is an interesting article on the subject...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201202 ... acta.shtml

flatlander wrote:... copying does not necessarily result in the loss of a potential sale, as the person doing the copying would not necessarily have spent the money in the first place (and it does not deprive the owner of future sales).

C'mon now. There is some theoretical validity to that idea, but as an argument it's just a bunch of bull****. It's an unknown. You might be right, and the individual never would buy it if that were the only way to get it, or they might buy it later on when they decide it is worth it. And you don't know which it is! You ought to be erring in favor of the author of the work, not the one wanting something for nothing.

The data itself that makes up a song or a movie or whatever never had any value to begin with because there is no scarcity; it is possible to generate as many copies as you want with the push of a button. When you play a DVD or a CD, you are technically generating another copy (or due to the nature of buffering, possibly several copies) of it. Even when you read this post you are actually reading a copy of a copy (of possibly dozens more in a chain of buffers) that was generated and sent to your browser, so the data is worth about as much as empty space is worth in the universe. What is valuable is the artificial scarcity granted by the copyrights.

What pirates are stealing is the copyright holders monopoly control over the product; it doesn't equal a lost sale (and pirates will often move to buy something they liked) but without that exclusive control the author wouldn't have the ability to generate any sales in the first place. So piracy is not as bad as stealing a CD in some ways (because CDs are naturally scarce) and worse than stealing a CD in other ways (because the monopoly control can be insanely more valuable than a CD).

The difficulty society faces with copyrights today is the disconnect between the physical value of a movie/song/text/etc (zero value) and the value of the monopoly control over who gets to copy the movie/song/text/etc (potentially astronomical when dragged out over 120 years).

I guess what I'm getting at is, if you don't want your property stolen, don't make it easy to do so. If a venue is known for pirating of goods don't put it there. Even police officers have to be careful:

"Legally speaking, entrapment occurs when a police officer or other government agent deceives a person into committing a crime that he or she had no intention of committing. In many jurisdictions, if a court determines that the charges against the defendant are based on entrapment, he or she cannot be convicted of the crime. Therefore, criminal defense lawyers might claim police or governmental entrapment as part of their strategy. The laws against this type of behavior by police or government agents are intended to prevent law enforcement agencies from coercing a citizen into committing a crime, then arresting him or her for the act."
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-entrapment.htm

For the music industry to want to file charges against people who buy their product and then share it because it is in a format that is easy to do so is akin to a jewelry store putting their wares in unlocked bins on the sidewalk and expect people to drop their payment in a tin can. What the music industry wants is to set their wares on a sidewalk and then expect the govt. to place a cop there to keep people honest.

Spidey wrote:The problem with “copying isn’t stealing” theory is very simple…when you buy a CD you only buy the right to listen to the content, you do not own that content.

Therefore it’s the content that is relevant…not the plastic disk it comes on.

I can sell my physical CD's or DVD's on the secondary market, just like paper books. I can't do that with digital music, movies or E-books.

It isn't really the music/movie industries fault that it has become so easy to copy a their stuff. With that analogy it would have had to always be on the street, just it used to be a small and phenomenally expensive toll road, now its a free superhighway.

The main problem with the RIAA/MPAAs is they are denying and actively fighting reality. The kind of control they used to have over the entire market will never happen again, no matter how many people they sue or how much they buy out legislators to make favorable laws for themselves it is still impossible because nobody can turn the clock back to the 1990s.

They're going to have to figure out how to deal with the new reality in the digital age, instead of coming up with schemes that punish honest paying costumers. They're only going to loose customers to frustration or disenchantment.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

flatlander wrote:... copying does not necessarily result in the loss of a potential sale, as the person doing the copying would not necessarily have spent the money in the first place (and it does not deprive the owner of future sales).

C'mon now. There is some theoretical validity to that idea, but as an argument it's just a bunch of bull****. It's an unknown. You might be right, and the individual never would buy it if that were the only way to get it, or they might buy it later on when they decide it is worth it. And you don't know which it is! You ought to be erring in favor of the author of the work, not the one wanting something for nothing.

Actually, we do know which it is, as studies like this one have shown. The results might surprise you.

These “studies” are always cited every time this issue is discussed, and debunked every time as well.

I need to see the empirical data showing a direct connection between pirating content leading to buying content as a result, not just pirating as a “supplement” to a insatiable media diet.

I'm not sure you can get that information that you want spidey, becuase more often than not it involves people admitting to piracy.

If you did pirate anything.. would you admit to it?