An idea instead of current piracy laws

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › An idea instead of current piracy laws

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

2120 posts

Uber Geek

#480252 12-Jun-2011 09:48

Ragnor:
tdgeek:

---1 download != 1 lost sale.---

So if you download a movie, you would not need to have bought it, or hired it? Same for music? So, when dowlaoding via P2P wasnt in existence you never paid money for a music CD, movie, movie tickets, game, etc?

That's a one sided view... what about when:

Person downloads the 128kbit mp3 version of a band's album, they like it so they do go an buy the CD.

Person downloads an album of a band touring here soon, based on liking the album they purchase a ticket to the concert, they loved the concert so they purchase and official t-shirt

Person doesn't download the album, forgets about the band doesn't buy anything.

Look, if bands want to give out their songs for free, and then give people a way to pay money for higher quality versions etc later, that's cool, but taking something that should have been paid for is not right even if the consequences are eventually positive for the person effected. They could have just as easily got you to the show if they had given out the album for free.

webwat

2036 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#480787 13-Jun-2011 22:33

Ragnor: Well for a start you have your terms all wrong.

Copyright infringement is "infringement", by definition it's not theft/stealing/piracy.... no matter how the media industry try to paint it.

If you steal my car, I no longer have my car.

If you download a copy of Dr Who from the internet you haven't stolen Dr Who they still have it.

You have only infringed on the Copyright owners government granted legal monopoly/exclusive right to profit from the work. It the case of a tv series it's a bit tenuous for example you wouldn't have paid for the show directly but by downloading it you may have contributed to Prime not paying for the rights to show it and so on...

There is quite an important distinction to be made here that many peoples don't understand.

That fact of the matter is with digital content you have an industry trying to impose an obsolete business model on the public via government lobbying.

Digital content is not scarce, there if infinite supply of the goods and almost no cost. Economics 101 tells you what happens when supply is finite at no marginal cost per uni.

The industry needs to sell non scarce things like convenable, reliability etc etc.

Time to find a new industry!

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#480827 14-Jun-2011 01:39

[Copyright infringement is "infringement", by definition it's not theft/stealing/piracy]

How do you define acquiring something, without paying the price tag, that has been produced for sale?

[If you steal my car, I no longer have my car.]

Incorrect analogy.

[If you download a copy of Dr Who from the internet you haven't stolen Dr Who they still have it. ]

Again, you are not arguing the correct point, what you are actually saying is that you do not believe in copyright.

[You have only infringed on the Copyright owners government granted legal monopoly/exclusive right to profit from the work. ]

When you buy a DVD or a legal download you are providing revenue to the creator, and their media manager company. Same as if you bought the DVD.

"government granted legal monopoly/exclusive right to profit from the work." I guess you mean the law that provides copyright. So, you donlt believe that copyright should exist?

[It the case of a tv series it's a bit tenuous for example you wouldn't have paid for the show directly but by downloading it you may have contributed to Prime not paying for the rights to show it and so on...]

Yes, a different scenario, Prime pay for it, recieve revenue from advertising. If the audience then decreases in that screening as you have already watched it, the advertising revenue will decrease as the advertiser is seeing a lower audience, so will see that time as lower value time. Prime will not then have the revenue to buy that cool a series.

[Digital content is not scarce, there is infinite supply of the goods and almost no cost. Economics 101 tells you what happens when supply is finite at no marginal cost per uni.]

Scarce resources, opportunity cost, guns and butter, Adam Smith, yes I recall Economics 101. And law (yuck)

Firstly Eco 101 existed before digital content, although it would have found a place, but you cannot use the same supply and demand principles, and you know that. With real assets, supply and demand will cause shifts in production, mobility of labour and cost. Digital content will not as its not a real item, it is an idea, a value. A song is a value of enjoyment, unaffected by physical or labour resources in its production. The demand will be satisfied by simple mathematics. 10 people want it, 10 people buy it.

The issue for you is that you don't believe in copyright, and that is your belief and that is fine, it would have been easier to say that early on.

But the issue is that due to copyright and revenue generating capacity for the creator and the creators management company, we have a range of gazillions of content. If it was made for free, how would these people live? They live and so do the thousands upon thousands of addon industries by selling their products, which happen to be the songs and other content, available at a store near you with a price tag, or by download. Because its not real, and can be duplicated your view is that the product is free.

SaltyNZ

8230 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#480832 14-Jun-2011 07:09

tdgeek:

[If you steal my car, I no longer have my car.]

Incorrect analogy.

Yes, I think that's his point.

tdgeek:

[If you download a copy of Dr Who from the internet you haven't stolen Dr Who they still have it. ]

Again, you are not arguing the correct point, what you are actually saying is that you do not believe in copyright.

He never said that.

tdgeek:

[It the case of a tv series it's a bit tenuous for example you wouldn't have paid for the show directly but by downloading it you may have contributed to Prime not paying for the rights to show it and so on...]

Yes, a different scenario, Prime pay for it, recieve revenue from advertising. If the audience then decreases in that screening as you have already watched it, the advertising revenue will decrease as the advertiser is seeing a lower audience, so will see that time as lower value time. Prime will not then have the revenue to buy that cool a series.

Except that no-one watches the ads anyway. I never have time to watch live TV - for some reason the networks put the shows I want to watch on at times I'm not watching TV - but if I do, as soon as the ad break comes on, the sound goes on mute and the iPad/phone/pee-/coffee-break happens. If I'm watching the program recorded from MySky, I fast forward the ads at 6x-12x speed.

Either way the ad-break is going to die a death in the next few years.

Unless of course I go out and *buy a DVD* in which case I end up with unskippable ads and admonishments not to pirate content.

tdgeek:

Firstly Eco 101 existed before digital content,

And entertainers existed before copyright too!

tdgeek:

although it would have found a place, but you cannot use the same supply and demand principles, and you know that. With real assets, supply and demand will cause shifts in production, mobility of labour and cost. Digital content will not as its not a real item, it is an idea, a value. A song is a value of enjoyment, unaffected by physical or labour resources in its production. The demand will be satisfied by simple mathematics. 10 people want it, 10 people buy it.

Nobody is suggesting there is no value in content. Just that the equation has dramatically shifted. Today, for the price of a dodgy second hand car, a band can buy recording equipment that have put a multi-million-dollar recording studio to shame 10 years ago. 24-bit, 16 tracks? You bet; worth about $2000. Who needs a crippling debt to a record company? You can record at home, write your own CDs (or have a small print run, I've done that before), sell on your own website or via iTunes... You miss out on some advertising but that's increasingly less important too. I haven't seen a single traditional advertisement for Redcoats.

There are going to be hardcore infringers who would infringe even if you offered them everything for free, just because they can. Just like there are speeders, even though the consequences of speeding are somewhat more severe than the consequences of copyright infringement. You are not going to be able to do anything about these people. Accept it. Move on.

But the majority of people who infringe do so because they have no 'legal' means. I couldn't buy the Redcoats music; it's not for sale here. I couldn't watch Doctor Who at the same time as the US and the UK; it's not broadcast or for sale here.

In the first case I wanted to pay even though I didn't need to (the music is available for free on their website) and in the second I am willing to pay even though I will be able to watch it for free when it *does* come on.

People are standing around waving money, and no-one is willing to take it. Is it any wonder that eventually they say 'f*** it' and and just go ahead and download?

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#480871 14-Jun-2011 09:23

I will just leave it at that, my opinion is that it is just trying to justify pirating. I agree that if everything you want is available online to be bought that will help, but I also feel that the vast majority of downloaded content is available. hard to imagine a current P2P dowmloader looking at the value of what he/she downloaded every month and parting with the purchase price of that

SaltyNZ

8230 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#480898 14-Jun-2011 10:01

tdgeek: my opinion is that it is just trying to justify pirating.

Not really, more that reasonable people are reasonable when treated reasonably, but get unreasonable when treated unreasonably for no good reason.

tdgeek:

I agree that if everything you want is available online to be bought that will help,

Great, then we agree.

tdgeek:
but I also feel that the vast majority of downloaded content is available. hard to imagine a current P2P dowmloader looking at the value of what he/she downloaded every month and parting with the purchase price of that

Again, we agree. Like I said numerous times, there are people who will never, ever pay. Fines? THEY DON'T CARE. Lots of people never pay fines. There are TV ads about it and everything. So: whining about them is unproductive, get over it.

Why not just work *with* those who *do* want to pay and collect their money, rather than making it harder for them to the benefit of no-one?

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

macuser

2120 posts

Uber Geek

#480907 14-Jun-2011 10:13

tdgeek: I will just leave it at that, my opinion is that it is just trying to justify pirating. I agree that if everything you want is available online to be bought that will help, but I also feel that the vast majority of downloaded content is available. hard to imagine a current P2P dowmloader looking at the value of what he/she downloaded every month and parting with the purchase price of that

+1

There is not a lot more I can say either, I think it's pretty clear what the sides are for this debate.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

SaltyNZ

8230 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#480911 14-Jun-2011 10:16

Here's an interesting thing I noticed; the hardcore infringement-is-theft people don't seem to be GZ subscribers. I wonder how many of them use browser ad blockers... It would be wrong to get something for free when it's so easy to pay for it, wouldn't it?

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

macuser

2120 posts

Uber Geek

#480917 14-Jun-2011 10:24

SaltyNZ: Here's an interesting thing I noticed; the hardcore infringement-is-theft people don't seem to be GZ subscribers. I wonder how many of them use browser ad blockers... It would be wrong to get something for free when it's so easy to pay for it, wouldn't it?

You're name calling mate, I'm not a subscriber because

I don't use this forum enough

I don't currently have the disposable cash even if I wanted to

To be clear, I currently pirate material, a lot, and I would be one of those effected if the argument that I was presenting was to go ahead.

On a side note, content I produce is constantly shared on sides like Tumblr, FFFFound and We Heart It - and then blogged by others hundreds of times, most of the time without a credit being given to me or the people involved ( here for example http://littlebitterluck.tumblr.com/post/4254700874 ). It doesn't worry me at all, as long as they are not using it for advertising or selling the image. It helps educate potential clients about my work, maybe they will visit my website one day and say 'Oh, James Stringer, HE is the guy who created all those images I like!'

SaltyNZ

8230 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#480925 14-Jun-2011 10:38

macuser:
You're name calling mate,

Not at all; at least, not unless you're using an ad blocker, in which case it's clear hypocrisy. You don't *have* to be a GZ subscriber, it's just rude to block ads if you're not.

I'm not a subscriber because

I don't use this forum enough

Fair enough.

I don't currently have the disposable cash even if I wanted to

Not fair enough. You're quite loud on the whole 'if you can't pay don't take it'. If you can't afford to pay for a GZ subscription, then either don't block ads, or don't use GZ. I imagine I've hit a nerve; your reply didn't start with "Actually, no, I don't block ads".

On a side note, content I produce is constantly shared on sides like Tumblr, FFFFound and We Heart It - and then blogged by others hundreds of times, most of the time without a credit being given to me or the people involved ( here for example http://littlebitterluck.tumblr.com/post/4254700874 ). It doesn't worry me at all, as long as they are not using it for advertising or selling the image. It helps educate potential clients about my work, maybe they will visit my website one day and say 'Oh, James Stringer, HE is the guy who created all those images I like!'

That must be nice. The content I produce only ever elicits 'Your network is teh sux0r' comments for the one in a million time that it screws up for some particular person, or because they think it is complete rubbish until it becomes the slightly different shade of blue which they prefer. At least, any compliments are greatly outweighed by such.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

ScottStevensNZ

245 posts

Master Geek

#480926 14-Jun-2011 10:39

SaltyNZ: Because refusing to shell out for content is not the problem for most people, in the same way that speeders doing 111km/hr on the motorway is not the major cause of traffic fatalities.

The only fixable problem is the lack of access to legal content. There will always be hard core pirates who will have TBs of pirated stuff they never even watch, and hard core speeders who will do 170 past your house. Neither gives two s***s about the law, fines or no fines. They just won't pay.

How do you sort out Piracy?
1. look at your 50+ year old business model releasing something 5 months after it has already been released to other jurisdictions does not work
2. Reduce the cost of your media to make it compeditive
3. Come to the realisation that copy protection measures ONLY cause hassle to legitimate content purchasers

Load & Performance Tester/PHP/JSP/C/PERL/MYSQL/LoadRunner8->11/HTML/CSS/XML/XSLT/2B|!2B/Cervelo Soloist/EMC Equip4/ Samsung Galaxy S /Darkys 10.2 Extreme

Do androids dream of electric sheep?
use strict;
my $sheepCount;

Yes, they can.

pageweon

393 posts

Ultimate Geek

#480946 14-Jun-2011 11:36

I have a thought, if watching television implies purchase through forced viewing of adds, then what about devices like tivo?
tivo will allow you to view the free to air programs without watching the adverts(or atleast not watching much of them) it also transfers the show from one medium to another.. is this piracy?

this is where a signature goes

macuser

2120 posts

Uber Geek

#480953 14-Jun-2011 11:55

SaltyNZ:

I don't block ads...

Used to block flash ads because of the performance issue (memory hog), don't do it anymore as I have plenty-o-ram.

@MOD apologies on the bullet points, it decided to add a whole bunch of spacers on my post, tried to edit it multiple times.

macuser

2120 posts

Uber Geek

#480959 14-Jun-2011 12:08

pageweon: I have a thought, if watching television implies purchase through forced viewing of adds, then what about devices like tivo?
tivo will allow you to view the free to air programs without watching the adverts(or atleast not watching much of them) it also transfers the show from one medium to another.. is this piracy?

Tivo is a time shifting device, same as recording on your VCR. Time Shifting is perfectly legal (It actually went into dispute while VCR/Betamax were trying to win that format war, have a read of this, See history in US http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_shifting ). I think what Tivo might do is just analise the video file, and try pick out the adverts, they're still imbedded in the file, just not shown them to you or I. Not sure though. Regardless, Time shifting in a non commercial sense is 'Fair Use'.

ScottStevensNZ

245 posts

Master Geek

#481000 14-Jun-2011 13:59

The point I was making with that was that they understand that identification from a central agency is important for identifying people to have secure and safe internet encounters, it would also be great for helping law enforcement agencies tackle problems on the web like they mentioned, and let people access the internet without their rights being abused. If people are accountable for their actions on the web they are less likely to be horrible, nasty and criminal. Just like a public place.

That assertion is highly unlikely to be the case. Any scheme such as the one you are mooting can be spoofed given enough time and effort and I suspect that given the distributed nature of the internet the amount of time required to crack a scheme such as your proposal wouldn't actually be that much. Once again, the inconvience would be on 'legitimate' users - i.e. mum and dads wondering why there internet isn't working or why they have to enter these extra fields, or what does it mean when their key store gets corrupted etc. Once again, deal with the root of the problem - availability and usability of content.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10