-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
"Intellectual Property" Law
- Thread starter AltF4
- Start date
You know that Google owns YouTube, right?
cman
Smash Ace
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 593
Really?? Why is there a separate Google Video then. What is the point?
Oracle
Smash Master
Ok. But, how exactly do they make money on their software without charging per download? Just curious
manhunter098
Smash Lord
Advertising or creating a service to cater to the users of the software.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 10,479
You're too focused on the software itself. Many businesses use the "main product" to drive interest to another more valuable good. Ubuntu, for example, delivers a cost-free, quality Linux distribution to drive up demand for support packages (paid access to tech support). Other businesses that need dependability buy that support to ensure that things run smoothly. Everyone else passes Linux around freely thus making it more popular. It is a rather clever business model.
MORE EVIDENCE -- http://techdirt.com/articles/20090120/1942463468.shtml
Newly added to the OP:
5) The Evils of Digital Restrictions Management (DRM). You know when you download a song to your iPod and the song deletes itself after listening to it three times? That's DRM. You know how the game Spore would only let you install three times, after which you're SOL? That's DRM.
DRM are digital restrictions on how you're allowed to use your product. You may, for instance, want to take a movie you just bought, and use a small clip out of it for a review of the movie that you're making. But you can't! Because the movie has restrictions built into it that make it impossible to do so. (Without cracking the encryption on the DVD)
That's what DRM is. Now why does it exist? To what nefarious purpose does it serve?
Let's first examine your Fair Use rights, as described by the Fair Use Doctrine of the United States. Fair Use rights are a set of rights that you are able to exercise even if the copyright holder does not want to you. For example, using excerpts of copyrighted material for the purpose of making a review is considered "fair".
This means that even if Paramount specifically told you "We forbid you from using any clips of our latest movie for any purpose!", you can tell them to take a hike! You are allowed to use clips from their movie and post it all over the internet for the purpose of reviewing the movie. The holder of the copyright has no say in this.
But of course the copyright holders (aka: The MPAA and RIAA) don't like this! They want full control over their copyrighted material. They don't like people using their works for ANY purpose without them getting money. So they came up with an ingenious plan!
Enter the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (aka: The DMCA):
It means that it's illegal to circumvent DRM even if you never make copies of copyrighted work!!! All the copyright holder has to do is make some pushover, easily breakable DRM scheme, and now they have total control over how the user is allowed to use their product. Complete legal control.
This effectively makes it illegal to exercise your Fair Use rights! Say you want to take some clips from a DVD to make a review of it. The law says that you should be able to do this. It is considered "Fair". But in order to actually GET the clips, you will have to break the encryption on your DVD to play it on your computer. Thus the copyright owner can sue you for making your review under the DMCA.
FURTHERMORE. It has been deemed illegal not only just to do the circumvention, but also to tell others how to. This is an outrage! You should be furious right about now! How can we let this happen?
So let's review:
1) You buy an album online with a song on it that is in the public domain. Just say that it is a Mozart piece or something.
2) You would like to take this song, and put it on your MP3 player.
3) Mozart is not copyrighted. You should have every right to be able to do this.
4) However, in order move the song to your MP3 player, you will have to bypass the (easily bypassed) DRM scheme.
5) You are then sued for several Million Dollars by the RIAA for "Willfully violating copyright"(Not kidding.)
Whatever you do. Do not support DRM, nor the companies that produce it. Protect your rights. Visit the defective by design link at the bottom of this post for more information.
EDIT: Have I won some kind of "Longest OP ever" award, yet?
5) The Evils of Digital Restrictions Management (DRM). You know when you download a song to your iPod and the song deletes itself after listening to it three times? That's DRM. You know how the game Spore would only let you install three times, after which you're SOL? That's DRM.
DRM are digital restrictions on how you're allowed to use your product. You may, for instance, want to take a movie you just bought, and use a small clip out of it for a review of the movie that you're making. But you can't! Because the movie has restrictions built into it that make it impossible to do so. (Without cracking the encryption on the DVD)
That's what DRM is. Now why does it exist? To what nefarious purpose does it serve?
Let's first examine your Fair Use rights, as described by the Fair Use Doctrine of the United States. Fair Use rights are a set of rights that you are able to exercise even if the copyright holder does not want to you. For example, using excerpts of copyrighted material for the purpose of making a review is considered "fair".
This means that even if Paramount specifically told you "We forbid you from using any clips of our latest movie for any purpose!", you can tell them to take a hike! You are allowed to use clips from their movie and post it all over the internet for the purpose of reviewing the movie. The holder of the copyright has no say in this.
But of course the copyright holders (aka: The MPAA and RIAA) don't like this! They want full control over their copyrighted material. They don't like people using their works for ANY purpose without them getting money. So they came up with an ingenious plan!
Enter the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (aka: The DMCA):
What does this mean?US Law said:
It means that it's illegal to circumvent DRM even if you never make copies of copyrighted work!!! All the copyright holder has to do is make some pushover, easily breakable DRM scheme, and now they have total control over how the user is allowed to use their product. Complete legal control.
This effectively makes it illegal to exercise your Fair Use rights! Say you want to take some clips from a DVD to make a review of it. The law says that you should be able to do this. It is considered "Fair". But in order to actually GET the clips, you will have to break the encryption on your DVD to play it on your computer. Thus the copyright owner can sue you for making your review under the DMCA.
FURTHERMORE. It has been deemed illegal not only just to do the circumvention, but also to tell others how to. This is an outrage! You should be furious right about now! How can we let this happen?
So let's review:
1) You buy an album online with a song on it that is in the public domain. Just say that it is a Mozart piece or something.
2) You would like to take this song, and put it on your MP3 player.
3) Mozart is not copyrighted. You should have every right to be able to do this.
4) However, in order move the song to your MP3 player, you will have to bypass the (easily bypassed) DRM scheme.
5) You are then sued for several Million Dollars by the RIAA for "Willfully violating copyright"(Not kidding.)
Whatever you do. Do not support DRM, nor the companies that produce it. Protect your rights. Visit the defective by design link at the bottom of this post for more information.
EDIT: Have I won some kind of "Longest OP ever" award, yet?
Reaver197
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2006
- Messages
- 1,287
I saw this article on Ars Technica, and thought it might fit in with this thread.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...he-spanish-inquisitionto-make-on-youtube.html
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...he-spanish-inquisitionto-make-on-youtube.html
Sony is the wh0re queen of DRM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sony_BMG_CD_copy_protection_scandal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sony_BMG_CD_copy_protection_scandal
...you know what? I kind of want a CD that has the "Sony XCP" label on it. Just as a souvenir, you know? That'd be awesome. And put it in a glass case with a Has-mat symbol on it, lol
D
Deleted member
Guest
Yo Alt, I dunno if you like this type of music, but:
This guy would basically be your hero. Girl Talk is a Biomedical Engineer by day and a Fair Use DJ by night / spare time.
Listen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK3O_qZVqXk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_Talk_(musician)
This guy would basically be your hero. Girl Talk is a Biomedical Engineer by day and a Fair Use DJ by night / spare time.
Listen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK3O_qZVqXk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_Talk_(musician)
arrowhead
Smash Ace
http://www.xkcd.com/488/
tada!
tada!
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 10,479
There is so much truth to this.
Content creators do not want "safe revenue"; they want 100% absolute control over what we do with their creations.
Added to OP:
9) Cory Doctorow. "Giving it Away" This is a first hand account of why copyrights as we see them today are not necessary for books. Also, a first hand account of how making your books available freely online helps spur physical book sales, and other revenue sources.
Cory can also be seen in such cameo's as in xkcd. (He's actually mentioned quite a bit in XKCD)
9) Cory Doctorow. "Giving it Away" This is a first hand account of why copyrights as we see them today are not necessary for books. Also, a first hand account of how making your books available freely online helps spur physical book sales, and other revenue sources.
Cory can also be seen in such cameo's as in xkcd. (He's actually mentioned quite a bit in XKCD)
illinialex24
Smash Hero
Yeah, I just burn CD's with it so I get it as an mp3.
Oracle
Smash Master
I have another question for AltF4-
How would the improved business model of software be applied to things like rom sharing? Nintendo for example, makes its money from selling physical game cartridges? But I can just go buy a third party DS flash cartridge, download the DS rom, and play it exactly as if I bought the game.
How would the improved business model of software be applied to things like rom sharing? Nintendo for example, makes its money from selling physical game cartridges? But I can just go buy a third party DS flash cartridge, download the DS rom, and play it exactly as if I bought the game.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 10,479
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090201/1408273588.shtml
There is your proof right there that the music industry is not dead or dying.
There is your proof right there that the music industry is not dead or dying.
Video Game ROMS and Emulators are a good case study. They have existed for a very long time, and yet the video game industry has not yet died. (Or at least not any more so than everyone else is during this economy!)
You're still trying to assume that sales of a video game as a product is the only way to make money from it. This is absolutely not true. You're trying to think "well, if I can download a game, how can developers possibly make money?". This is the same question answered several times over in this thread.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 10,479
It always fascinates me that the game industry has refused to take up an RIAA-type stance against emulation. There are hundreds of music download lawsuits but almost no lawsuits regarding old console emulation.
Perhaps because they know it's bull****?
It's probably because these consoles and games are not available in stores anymore, therefore they aren't really losing money. Music, on the other hand, is practically always available for purchase.
There are things like the virtual console, but they won't have everything. Nintendo prints money anyways. . .
So the Pool Room was deemed incapable of handling a touchy subject such as copyright. So my previous thread there will be incorporated here:
Added to the OP:
10) BREAKING: The Pirate Bay Trial! The Pirate Bay is currently under trial (again) in Sweden. They were able to get a landmark ruling that allowed audio and some video recordings of the trial published freely online. However, it will do you little good unless you can speak Swedish!
Luckily our friends at TorrentFreak have some good translations. I will keep this updated as more information comes daily!
Pre-Trial Press Conference
Trial: Day 1
Trial: Day 2 (Major victory!)
Long Live The Pirate Bay! Show your support!
Also just added to the OP:
6) The Myth of Originality. One of the most common arguments you will see (in court) in regards to copyright law is an appeal to "originality". That holders of copyrights have something that they invented all of their own, that it is original, unique, and special. Therefore they deserve "protection" of this idea.
This is of course absurd. And not at all representative of the actual creative process. Creativity is derivative. Everything anyone does is not completely original, but rather builds upon the works of others. Sometimes these works are downplayed and called "influences" so as to not seem like they are merely "copying" them. But this is of course the case.
Just look at the Disney Corporation. Disney is one of the largest Copyright abusers around. They guard their copyrights with such an iron grip that they sue anyone for even hinting at using what they consider "theirs". They even went so far as to bribe congress into extending copyright law just so they wouldn't lose Mickey Mouse.
But where did they get all of these copyrights? Are they "original", and special? Of course not! Look at just about every Disney work there is. Pocahontas, Hercules, Snow White, etc... Almost all of Disney's works are derivatives of either historical events or The Brothers Grimm.
The Lord of the Rings is a rip off of Richard Wagner's "Ring Cycle". The list goes on and on.
But you see, my point is not to smear artists and claim they are just ripping each other off. My point is to clarify that this IS the creative process. Creativity is taking that which existed before you and improving it, making it your own. Walt Disney was so successful because he added something to those tales he borrowed. Something uniquely his.
But what about today? Today the table has turned. Now the older generation does not want to share. They do not want to allow others to create derivative works based on their ideas. Copyright law specifically prevents the use of copyrighted work for derivative works!
They are destroying the creative process.
Do not allow this. You must fight for the right to allow derivative works. This is not "copying" this is not "stealing". This is being an artist.
Added to the OP:
10) BREAKING: The Pirate Bay Trial! The Pirate Bay is currently under trial (again) in Sweden. They were able to get a landmark ruling that allowed audio and some video recordings of the trial published freely online. However, it will do you little good unless you can speak Swedish!
Luckily our friends at TorrentFreak have some good translations. I will keep this updated as more information comes daily!
Pre-Trial Press Conference
Trial: Day 1
Trial: Day 2 (Major victory!)
Long Live The Pirate Bay! Show your support!
Also just added to the OP:
6) The Myth of Originality. One of the most common arguments you will see (in court) in regards to copyright law is an appeal to "originality". That holders of copyrights have something that they invented all of their own, that it is original, unique, and special. Therefore they deserve "protection" of this idea.
This is of course absurd. And not at all representative of the actual creative process. Creativity is derivative. Everything anyone does is not completely original, but rather builds upon the works of others. Sometimes these works are downplayed and called "influences" so as to not seem like they are merely "copying" them. But this is of course the case.
Just look at the Disney Corporation. Disney is one of the largest Copyright abusers around. They guard their copyrights with such an iron grip that they sue anyone for even hinting at using what they consider "theirs". They even went so far as to bribe congress into extending copyright law just so they wouldn't lose Mickey Mouse.
But where did they get all of these copyrights? Are they "original", and special? Of course not! Look at just about every Disney work there is. Pocahontas, Hercules, Snow White, etc... Almost all of Disney's works are derivatives of either historical events or The Brothers Grimm.
The Lord of the Rings is a rip off of Richard Wagner's "Ring Cycle". The list goes on and on.
But you see, my point is not to smear artists and claim they are just ripping each other off. My point is to clarify that this IS the creative process. Creativity is taking that which existed before you and improving it, making it your own. Walt Disney was so successful because he added something to those tales he borrowed. Something uniquely his.
But what about today? Today the table has turned. Now the older generation does not want to share. They do not want to allow others to create derivative works based on their ideas. Copyright law specifically prevents the use of copyrighted work for derivative works!
They are destroying the creative process.
Do not allow this. You must fight for the right to allow derivative works. This is not "copying" this is not "stealing". This is being an artist.
Good read on originality.
To me, this subject is incredibly interesting, especially because so much of it collides with my Objectivist viewpoint, but I have to say that all the research you've presented in this thread has really helped me. I also wrote a term paper concerning intellectual property a while back after this thread was created, and I used some of the sources you cited. Great stuff.
I'll post again when I'm done reading the trial story. This seems interesting, especially considering how lax these kinds of things are in Sweden, at least compared to the U.S.
To me, this subject is incredibly interesting, especially because so much of it collides with my Objectivist viewpoint, but I have to say that all the research you've presented in this thread has really helped me. I also wrote a term paper concerning intellectual property a while back after this thread was created, and I used some of the sources you cited. Great stuff.
I'll post again when I'm done reading the trial story. This seems interesting, especially considering how lax these kinds of things are in Sweden, at least compared to the U.S.
Added to the OP:
(This might be the last major update for a while)
7) File Sharing Okay, let's get down to it, shall we? I've put this topic off long enough. Let's directly talk about file sharing. Specifically over a technology called Bit Torrent. I will first describe briefly what the technology is, and what makes it so revolutionary.
Bit Torrent is a networking technology and protocol based off of Peer to Peer (P2P) communication. When you download a file using Bit Torrent, what you do is download the file not from any central source, but rather everyone else in the world who happens to have that file (and is using Bit Torrent, obviously).
The key thing to understand about Bit Torrent is that it's decentralized. That means there is no hub or controlling entity. Communications are entirely from Peer to Peer. This changes the dynamics of distribution dramatically!
In every other instance in the world, an increase in demand for a product will cause it to become scarce. If everyone in the world wanted a doughnut at the same time, there would be a worldwide shortage of doughnuts. Doughnuts would be very hard to come by, and very expensive.
We see this same phenomenon with web servers. When lots of people are all logged onto the Smashboards all at the same time, what happens? The servers crash, and the Smashboards become scarce.
But the opposite is true of Bit Torrent. When something becomes popular, it is EASIER to obtain! The more people that are in possession of a file, the more people are there to distribute it. And this process snowballs exponentially. The technology of Bit Torrent is a technological breakthrough for distribution of content. Nothing which is popular can ever be scarce in Bit Torrenting!
But organizations such as the RIAA and MPAA don't like this technology. They claim that they are losing money from it, therefore it must be stopped. The response to this assertion is threefold:
Response #1) They are incorrect that Bit Torrent is bad for them. To illustrate this claim, let's consider the four kinds of Bit Torrent downloads...
A) The user downloads a file instead of buying the file through other means. If they didn't download that file, they would have bought it at another time. In this case, a "loss" can be said to have occurred for the seller of this file.
B) The user downloads a file, but would not have otherwise purchased it. In this case, no "loss" of any kind is experienced by anyone. In fact, this kind of download is beneficial to the seller of the file. The downloader is much more likely afterward to be interested in future works and purchase items.
C) The user downloads a file which is no longer commercially available. Most books go out of print after a single year. (see "Free Culture" link at the bottom) Old music leaves store shelves, old video games stop being manufactured. There is a huge amount of content which is copyrighted, yet not commercially available. (Indicating clearly that copyright duration is too long) Downloading one of these files also represents no loss to anyone. and again, they in fact contribute positively to the overall content industry.
D) The user downloads a file which is not copyrighted, or that which is intended for download. This of course is all in the intended operation of business and impacts the industry positively.
So the question of whether file sharing hurts or helps "The Industry" can be boiled down to the question:
"How many downloads are of type A versus B, C, and D?"
First, use your own anecdotal evidence. Look at your library of pirated music. Look at your friend's library of pirated music. What percent of that music did you download INSTEAD of buying? How much of that music would you have actually gone to the store and bought, but downloaded instead.
Very little I suspect. But let's get some numbers, shall we?
The total dollar price of internet downloads in 2007 was just recently estimated at 69 Billion dollars. That number is just the number of estimated downloads times the average price of purchasing that file. [7]
The RIAA claims that piracy costs 12.5 Billion dollars in losses every year. [8] Of course that number includes many other "losses" that aren't attributable solely to piracy such as the loss of jobs. But we won't take that into account. And of course that number is wildly inflated as it has been hand-picked by the RIAA. But we also won't take that into account. And of course in this terrible global economy, we should expect to see losses. But we won't take that into account.
If 69 Billion dollars worth of downloads happened, and only 12.5 Billion dollars of "losses" were experienced, that means that only 18% of downloads were of type A! (But realistically, an order of magnitude lower) The remaining 81% of downloads helped the industry as a whole.
Response #2) Why does it matter that the RIAA and MPAA keep their pockets lined with gold? Why do we need to make laws to ensure that they never go out of business or get replaced? Let's look at this culturally.
Bit Torrent also represents a cultural revolution back into what Lawrence Lessig calls "Read-Write" culture. You see, for the vast majority of human history, culture was created, spread, and consumed by everyone. Everyone was a creator and everyone was a consumer of culture. Children used to "stand on the corner, singing the songs of the day" as he quotes in his speeches.
Then there was a revolution. A technological revolution. One brought about by television, radio, and the printed word. It was now possible to Broadcast information. And this changed everything.
It shaped the very way we perceive culture. In this kind of society, we have a "Read Only" culture. You are a consumer of culture, but you do not create it. There today a very small percentage of the total population which is a producer of culture, and the rest merely are exposed to it.
But technology has once again caused a revolution. The barriers to entry into being a producer have been lifted. Any 3rd grader with access to a $400 computer can contribute to modern culture. Culture itself is now "Read-Write" again. It is simple to use technology to spread, exchange, and modify culture.
This naturally will upset the balance that is in place. The old culture broadcasters don't like their monopoly being taken away. And they have lots of money.
Response #3) None of this matters. Bit Torrent has been invented. It cannot be un-invented.
The revolution is already occurring, nothing can stop it. The only think companies have a choice about is whether they want to profit from this new technology, or be destroyed by it.
More news from the front:
Trial Day 3 updated on the OP
Trial Day 4 updated on the OP
Day 5, too
(This might be the last major update for a while)
7) File Sharing Okay, let's get down to it, shall we? I've put this topic off long enough. Let's directly talk about file sharing. Specifically over a technology called Bit Torrent. I will first describe briefly what the technology is, and what makes it so revolutionary.
Bit Torrent is a networking technology and protocol based off of Peer to Peer (P2P) communication. When you download a file using Bit Torrent, what you do is download the file not from any central source, but rather everyone else in the world who happens to have that file (and is using Bit Torrent, obviously).
The key thing to understand about Bit Torrent is that it's decentralized. That means there is no hub or controlling entity. Communications are entirely from Peer to Peer. This changes the dynamics of distribution dramatically!
In every other instance in the world, an increase in demand for a product will cause it to become scarce. If everyone in the world wanted a doughnut at the same time, there would be a worldwide shortage of doughnuts. Doughnuts would be very hard to come by, and very expensive.
We see this same phenomenon with web servers. When lots of people are all logged onto the Smashboards all at the same time, what happens? The servers crash, and the Smashboards become scarce.
But the opposite is true of Bit Torrent. When something becomes popular, it is EASIER to obtain! The more people that are in possession of a file, the more people are there to distribute it. And this process snowballs exponentially. The technology of Bit Torrent is a technological breakthrough for distribution of content. Nothing which is popular can ever be scarce in Bit Torrenting!
But organizations such as the RIAA and MPAA don't like this technology. They claim that they are losing money from it, therefore it must be stopped. The response to this assertion is threefold:
Response #1) They are incorrect that Bit Torrent is bad for them. To illustrate this claim, let's consider the four kinds of Bit Torrent downloads...
A) The user downloads a file instead of buying the file through other means. If they didn't download that file, they would have bought it at another time. In this case, a "loss" can be said to have occurred for the seller of this file.
B) The user downloads a file, but would not have otherwise purchased it. In this case, no "loss" of any kind is experienced by anyone. In fact, this kind of download is beneficial to the seller of the file. The downloader is much more likely afterward to be interested in future works and purchase items.
C) The user downloads a file which is no longer commercially available. Most books go out of print after a single year. (see "Free Culture" link at the bottom) Old music leaves store shelves, old video games stop being manufactured. There is a huge amount of content which is copyrighted, yet not commercially available. (Indicating clearly that copyright duration is too long) Downloading one of these files also represents no loss to anyone. and again, they in fact contribute positively to the overall content industry.
D) The user downloads a file which is not copyrighted, or that which is intended for download. This of course is all in the intended operation of business and impacts the industry positively.
So the question of whether file sharing hurts or helps "The Industry" can be boiled down to the question:
"How many downloads are of type A versus B, C, and D?"
First, use your own anecdotal evidence. Look at your library of pirated music. Look at your friend's library of pirated music. What percent of that music did you download INSTEAD of buying? How much of that music would you have actually gone to the store and bought, but downloaded instead.
Very little I suspect. But let's get some numbers, shall we?
The total dollar price of internet downloads in 2007 was just recently estimated at 69 Billion dollars. That number is just the number of estimated downloads times the average price of purchasing that file. [7]
The RIAA claims that piracy costs 12.5 Billion dollars in losses every year. [8] Of course that number includes many other "losses" that aren't attributable solely to piracy such as the loss of jobs. But we won't take that into account. And of course that number is wildly inflated as it has been hand-picked by the RIAA. But we also won't take that into account. And of course in this terrible global economy, we should expect to see losses. But we won't take that into account.
If 69 Billion dollars worth of downloads happened, and only 12.5 Billion dollars of "losses" were experienced, that means that only 18% of downloads were of type A! (But realistically, an order of magnitude lower) The remaining 81% of downloads helped the industry as a whole.
Response #2) Why does it matter that the RIAA and MPAA keep their pockets lined with gold? Why do we need to make laws to ensure that they never go out of business or get replaced? Let's look at this culturally.
Bit Torrent also represents a cultural revolution back into what Lawrence Lessig calls "Read-Write" culture. You see, for the vast majority of human history, culture was created, spread, and consumed by everyone. Everyone was a creator and everyone was a consumer of culture. Children used to "stand on the corner, singing the songs of the day" as he quotes in his speeches.
Then there was a revolution. A technological revolution. One brought about by television, radio, and the printed word. It was now possible to Broadcast information. And this changed everything.
It shaped the very way we perceive culture. In this kind of society, we have a "Read Only" culture. You are a consumer of culture, but you do not create it. There today a very small percentage of the total population which is a producer of culture, and the rest merely are exposed to it.
But technology has once again caused a revolution. The barriers to entry into being a producer have been lifted. Any 3rd grader with access to a $400 computer can contribute to modern culture. Culture itself is now "Read-Write" again. It is simple to use technology to spread, exchange, and modify culture.
This naturally will upset the balance that is in place. The old culture broadcasters don't like their monopoly being taken away. And they have lots of money.
Response #3) None of this matters. Bit Torrent has been invented. It cannot be un-invented.
The revolution is already occurring, nothing can stop it. The only think companies have a choice about is whether they want to profit from this new technology, or be destroyed by it.
Chinese Proverb said:
More news from the front:
Trial Day 3 updated on the OP
Trial Day 4 updated on the OP
Day 5, too
Because I just couldn't resist...
Today's XKCD.
(I didn't post the real picture, because it said **** on it)
EDIT: Spectrial days through 9 now updated.
Now 10!
Today's XKCD.
(I didn't post the real picture, because it said **** on it)
EDIT: Spectrial days through 9 now updated.
Now 10!
blazedaces
Smash Lord
Just in case you haven't heard of it, I'm betting you would love http://www.phdcomics.com/ (a comic strip about grad students)...
-blazed
Edit: And on a side note of course I completely agree with the points you brought up. I agree that morally response #'s 1 and 2 matter, but economically speaking #3 is the most important one. Nothing in the entire world will stop bittorent and massive sharing, NOTHING. The proverb hits the nail on the ... proverbial head.
NEWS:
The Initial Trial of the Pirate Bay founders in Sweden: Guilty
Full coverage at HERE and HERE
This of course comes as a huge blow to advancing technology and freedom on the internet. However, the case is being appealed. And in truth, it would have been appealed no matter who won. So this initial trial had little real impact. A final verdict is unlikely to come for years, as the case will almost certainly reach the highest Swedish courts.
The Initial Trial of the Pirate Bay founders in Sweden: Guilty
Full coverage at HERE and HERE
This of course comes as a huge blow to advancing technology and freedom on the internet. However, the case is being appealed. And in truth, it would have been appealed no matter who won. So this initial trial had little real impact. A final verdict is unlikely to come for years, as the case will almost certainly reach the highest Swedish courts.
Ouch, I hope the pirate bay is able to hold up in the higher courts.
I have always liked the idea of a limited time on a copyright. When a movie or video game is originally made, the producers should have somewhere around 5 years to use their creating as a source of revenue. Once this time period expires, the product shouldn't be under as much scrutiny.
I also agree heavilly with the advertising as a source of revenue in video games. A great example of this is in Anarchy Online. There are billboards in the major cities, and televisions in the shops that play commercials all the time. It isn't a major annoyance to the players, and gives the game a more "human" feel to it. It's just more like reality to see a big Pepsi billboard in the middle of town square, or to hear the famous "have it your way" while selling your loot from your previous dungeon run. Even dungeons will have advertising signs in them. With the revenue from these advertisements, the company is able to supply a free version of the game. While it is limited and you can't buy any expansions, it is still a great game and a well thought out system to be able to play for free.
I can't see why other game companies can't advertise in the same manner. It wouldn't be difficult to have Wii Fit take place in a studio with a window that overlooks a billboard with an advertisement for McDonalds on it. It would generate more revenue for Nintendo and create a more lifelike experience in the game.
I have always liked the idea of a limited time on a copyright. When a movie or video game is originally made, the producers should have somewhere around 5 years to use their creating as a source of revenue. Once this time period expires, the product shouldn't be under as much scrutiny.
I also agree heavilly with the advertising as a source of revenue in video games. A great example of this is in Anarchy Online. There are billboards in the major cities, and televisions in the shops that play commercials all the time. It isn't a major annoyance to the players, and gives the game a more "human" feel to it. It's just more like reality to see a big Pepsi billboard in the middle of town square, or to hear the famous "have it your way" while selling your loot from your previous dungeon run. Even dungeons will have advertising signs in them. With the revenue from these advertisements, the company is able to supply a free version of the game. While it is limited and you can't buy any expansions, it is still a great game and a well thought out system to be able to play for free.
I can't see why other game companies can't advertise in the same manner. It wouldn't be difficult to have Wii Fit take place in a studio with a window that overlooks a billboard with an advertisement for McDonalds on it. It would generate more revenue for Nintendo and create a more lifelike experience in the game.
I heard about the trial verdict just the other day.
What's funny to me is that no matter how hard people try to stamp out piracy, it's always going to exist. Most anti-piracy corporations know this, and realize that if they prosecuted people who take part in piracy, it would not only be a massive waste of time, money, and resources with little to no payoff, but it would also alienate the very people who buy their products.
Which is why the MPAA and the RIAA don't prosecute every single person whose IP address they find in P2P swarms. Most of the time they pick one person out of the blue to make an example of and hope people get scared enough that they'll stop pirating. Getting a notification in the mail from your ISP about your downloading habits is fairly frightening.
In any case, **** the popo.
What's funny to me is that no matter how hard people try to stamp out piracy, it's always going to exist. Most anti-piracy corporations know this, and realize that if they prosecuted people who take part in piracy, it would not only be a massive waste of time, money, and resources with little to no payoff, but it would also alienate the very people who buy their products.
Which is why the MPAA and the RIAA don't prosecute every single person whose IP address they find in P2P swarms. Most of the time they pick one person out of the blue to make an example of and hope people get scared enough that they'll stop pirating. Getting a notification in the mail from your ISP about your downloading habits is fairly frightening.
In any case, **** the popo.
The case is just going to blow up in the IFPI's face.
The Swedish Pirate Party is growing significantly due to the grossly unfair verdict.
Seriously. 4 years of combined prison sentences. 4 YEARS. Murderers and rapists get off with less. And there wasn't even any evidence. The prosecution presented screenshots as their only evidence. This just shows you how uninformed the prosecution and the judges were. And why it's important to get a technically competent judge. This will surely be reversed in appeals court.
The anti-copyright movement needs figures like the Pirate Bay. They are defiant, and never back down.
The Swedish Pirate Party is growing significantly due to the grossly unfair verdict.
Seriously. 4 years of combined prison sentences. 4 YEARS. Murderers and rapists get off with less. And there wasn't even any evidence. The prosecution presented screenshots as their only evidence. This just shows you how uninformed the prosecution and the judges were. And why it's important to get a technically competent judge. This will surely be reversed in appeals court.
The anti-copyright movement needs figures like the Pirate Bay. They are defiant, and never back down.
They are the heroes and martyrs of the Free Culture movement.Brokep said:
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 10,479
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090410/1359174465.shtml -- It is time to embrace the Internet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcXxpMnlDGo
One of the Swedish Pirate Party leaders, Rickard Falkvinge, made a really good point about how absurd this court case is. He pretty much summed it up by likening suing a legal internet filesharing business because some of its users participate in illegal transactions to suing the postal service because some people decide to use it to distribute narcotics, or suing Smith & Wesson for premeditated manslaughter.
One of the Swedish Pirate Party leaders, Rickard Falkvinge, made a really good point about how absurd this court case is. He pretty much summed it up by likening suing a legal internet filesharing business because some of its users participate in illegal transactions to suing the postal service because some people decide to use it to distribute narcotics, or suing Smith & Wesson for premeditated manslaughter.
illinialex24
Smash Hero
Yeah is pretty similar except for one thing. They actively stopped requests to take down copyrighted material, instead of obliging. If the postal service finds something with narcotics, they don't react the same way.
That is the key difference.
That is the key difference.
The postal service doesn't concern itself with the contents of their clients' mail, and if they did, that would be a breach of the clients' privacy. Why should it be any different for any other service?
Like I said, suing a company for what people do with their products is inane.
illinialex24
Smash Hero
Comparing the food distribution industry to the postal service is ridiculous and you know it.
Health regulations for restaurants are set in place so people don't unknowingly walk into a restaurant and catch some life-threatening disease. I don't know of any similar law pertaining to the postal service, and seeing as how it bears virtually no relation to the food industry, there probably isn't. Unless you're actively seeking to harm the public via the postal service, like mailing anthrax or something, employees aren't going to go rooting around in your mail.
The key difference is that by making their food unsafe to eat and not properly warning people about it, restaurants are endangering their customers, who, besides health and safety regulations, have no way of knowing whether or not a particular restaurant's kitchen stove is crawling with last month's specialty dish, and god knows what else.
Mailing narcotics (which, BTW, shouldn't even be illegal while we can legally go out, get stone-cold drunk, and kill other people on the road) is not even comparable.
illinialex24
Smash Hero
Yeah I do but I am playing the devil's advocate. I'm gonna see if I can find stuff on the mailing industry and if they respond to warnings or whatever.