[Rick James]

The people who pirate now like to have schmoes like me buy the work (and keep the company profitable) while they don't pay. Once it becomes ok to pirate, no one will do anything else and the companies will collapse.

Why must you so generally describe an entire user base without providing any evidence?

A. There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying the CD, these users simply take it. We might quibble about whether everyone who takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available for free. Most probably wouldn't have, but clearly there are some who would. The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead of purchasing.

B. There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing it. Thus, a friend sends another friend an MP3 of an artist he's not heard of. The other friend then buys CDs by that artist. This is a kind of targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed. If the friend recommending the album gains nothing from a bad recommendation, then one could expect that the recommendations will actually be quite good. The net effect of this sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased.
 
C. There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the transaction costs off the Net are too high. This use of sharing networks is among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were part of your childhood but have long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on the network. (One friend told me that when she discovered Napster, she spent a solid weekend "recalling" old songs. She was astonished at the range and mix of content that was available.) For content not sold, this is still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is zero--the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s 45-rpm records to a local collector.

D. Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.

Are you arguing that by not going after people who pirate material, it'll go down? Really?

If the RIAA and such say "That's it, no more cases. We're not chasing a person again for this" that pirating will go down?

I am saying that current Intellectual Property laws are too much in favor of producer/rights-holder than consumer--and pointless in being so. Downloading will continue, whether the law explicitly permits it or not. Why not amend the law so that copyright is beneficial to everyone?

They want it reformed because they want the work for free. They want to do what they're doing, just with no legal ramifications. Everyone wants the companies to make money but no one seems to want to be the one to pay for it.

Again, you are generalizing without providing any sufficient evidence to back up your claim. A large portion of file-sharers, myself included, gladly pay for original copies of what they download--and most other demographics are not as malign as you seem to believe.

What do you think copyright law should be? And how will companies turn profits in those conditions?

Given your previous (false) assertion that all pirates are malignant users who download music, games, and movies as a substitution for purchase, these questions are invalid. These companies are turning a huge profit now--profit that seems to be increasing one year after another, and unabated by the growth in the use of peer-to-peer technologies. They will continue to make greater profit in the future.

[Blue Lion]

Why must you so generally describe an entire user base without providing any evidence?

Let's look at this argument and well point out all the parts that deal with what you quoted me on.

A. There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying the CD, these users simply take it. We might quibble about whether everyone who takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available for free. Most probably wouldn't have, but clearly there are some who would. The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead of purchasing.

This group clearly just wants work for free. Since that work needs to turn a profit to keep being made (Madonna won't work for free) people actually have to buy it (though why they would buy a Madonna CD is beyond me)

B. There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing it. Thus, a friend sends another friend an MP3 of an artist he's not heard of. The other friend then buys CDs by that artist. This is a kind of targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed. If the friend recommending the album gains nothing from a bad recommendation, then one could expect that the recommendations will actually be quite good. The net effect of this sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased.

Not really sure how this differs from the above group except they are ALSO in the "pay" group.

They download music and then don't buy it.
 

C. There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the transaction costs off the Net are too high. This use of sharing networks is among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were part of your childhood but have long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on the network. (One friend told me that when she discovered Napster, she spent a solid weekend "recalling" old songs. She was astonished at the range and mix of content that was available.) For content not sold, this is still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is zero--the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s 45-rpm records to a local collector.

"I'm poor" and "You said no, but I'm going to ignore you"

Not one work mentioned here didn't generate a profit or require someone buy it. This again is an example of someone getting a work for free that others paid for.

If he doesn't want to sell his work, you don't get to take it. (This is directly tied to the "my own personal work" example)

D. Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.

You mean works no one pays for? Works that are free should be free? Why is this even here as an example? Who's buying this?

I am saying that current Intellectual Property laws are too much in favor of producer/rights-holder than consumer--and pointless in being so.

Why? Examples please.

You want a work, they charge you for it. What part is giving you trouble?

Downloading will continue, whether the law explicitly permits it or not. Why not amend the law so that copyright is beneficial to everyone?

Amend the law to what? To say downloaded works are free? How does that benefit the owner? No one would buy a work that is free. You, like Kosh, keep tiptoeing around the real questions. What is the alternative?

Again, you are generalizing without providing any sufficient evidence to back up your claim. A large portion of file-sharers, myself included, gladly pay for original copies of what they download--and most other demographics are not as malign as you seem to believe.

This would be a more convincing case if you weren't arguing that the stuff should be free. If you'll gladly pay for it, why are you arguing you shouldn't have to?

Given your previous (false) assertion that all pirates are malignant users who download music, games, and movies as a substitution for purchase, these questions are invalid.

Short answer: "You called me names"

Long answer: "I don't have a realistic scenario in which these companies can turn a profit on free work."

As for the main part of your complaint, they ARE users who download music, games and movies as a substitution for purchase. EVERY example you listed involved someone getting a work without paying for it.

No one calls up MGM, sends them a check for 20 bucks and then downloads a movie off a torrent. You have to pay for a work when you get it. Not later... maybe.... if you like it.

These companies are turning a huge profit now--profit that seems to be increasing one year after another, and unabated by the growth in the use of peer-to-peer technologies. They will continue to make greater profit in the future.

They're turning profits because... amazingly enough, people are buying them. You, however, seem to be arguing that people shouldn't be buying them. If people don't buy them, how do they make money?

How do these companies make money if they don't sell anything?

[Kosh]

I think Rick James sums it up nicely. Sweeping generalizations and logical fallacies really aren't helping BL's arguement.

[Blue Lion]

I think Rick James sums it up nicely. Sweeping generalizations and logical fallacies really aren't helping BL's arguement.

You'd prefer I argue the fact that copyright law is still in fact copyright law by arguing the personal reasonings behind every single person using the internet? It's not my fault you misunderstand the very basis of law. "But this guy does it for this reason" doesn't suddenly make copyright law go away.

Why not just admit that this is not a glorious market changing movement and is just people being greedy? Instead of arguing that these people aren't greedy, you say I'm calling them names so you don't have to. This is a nice (and obvious) way of getting around that they ARE greedy, you just don't care that they are.

Wanting something for free even though it's both against the law and against the wishes of the owner and then arguing you have a greater right to the work. What does that sound like?

You argue against sweeping generalizations but then argue the companies are bad. Are they all bad? Which ones aren't? Which companies do we pirate from because they're bad and which do we not because they're good? No one ever seems to make that distinction. Is it ok to take from artists without paying if they're just bad? Or do they have to be run poorly too? Do you not pay for people's work even if they operate correctly in this new internet thingy? What's the rules on this?

You can't come up with a scenario that works for these companies as a model.  This is mostly because there is no real plan besides "give it to use for free" You guys just add in the reasons for whichever fits best at the moment.

You can't come up with logical reasons why copyright law should change. There are some, you're just failing at it. Faster internet doesn't make copyright different somehow. It just makes it harder to enforce.  "They can't stop us" is just wrong. They will, you just may not like the way they do it.

You're arguing two things... poorly.

You're arguing these works should be free. You're giving no reasoning, no proof. Everyone is quick to jump on these companies as bad, and ruining the work. But no one really wants to say why and how?

You're arguing you're helping these companies turn massive profits. If they were really beating these things into the ground, wouldn't they be not profitable?

You're telling me these companies are masterminds that have huge profits, then tell me they shouldn't be in charge of a lemonade stand because they're so terrible at it in a changing society.

Also the fact that none of you have offered any real specific changes to copyright law tells me one thing: you don't have one or have one that is so ridiculous you can't even say it here because you know it'll get laughed at immediately.

But please, keep running away cause I called you mean names like "thief".The fingers in the ears "LALALA I'm not stealing" is really paying off for you guys.

[Bobboau]

run adds in streaming videos/music.

there, profit made.

[Blue Lion]

run adds in streaming videos/music.

there, profit made.

Streaming music is a great way to do this. Places like myspace and such already have streaming music. If you could keep people from copying it, it would work great.

Not just music either, movies and TV shows.

Places like Hulu and such already do this. As long as you don't have a copy of it, this is all perfectly legal and profitable.

[cloneof]

This is all about cultural diffrences. The current world is racist against the Internet people  .

[Blue Lion]

This is all about cultural diffrences. The current world is racist against the Internet people  .

You're kidding, right? 

[cloneof]

As a matter of fact, no. In here in Internet, from the creation of WWW in 1993, we have come and set our own rules and such to this very day. The fact that the Internet was not watched over in the beginning, makes it an ideal way to simulate paradise world, as we have. We have created our very own culture composed of trash like Lolcats, Pedobear, Rick Roll. Jokes, material and art only understandable within the environment of the Internet. Now the world governments are trying to suppress our way of live with Internet monitoring and other Internet censoring laws. While they try to create laws that will affect our way of having fun, they are mostly not affected by the civil rights of the people of the Internet, for example the British law to save all the emails up to an year.

The only worry is that if the world entities such as USA or EU go too far in usurping the rights of the Internet people, Internet might fought back. Already we have seen it in the form of Anonymous DDOS attacking sites. The Internet people is not that far off concept. Pirate Parties are basically people that used to communicate and socialize in Internet, only to find that governments try to limit what they can do.

[The E]

Errr.....No. Technically, we do not have any rights on the Internet. All we have is a tradition of unhindered communication between people on the Internet. While the current need of politicians around the globe to hinder the free speech we have enjoyed so far is worrying, it is not "racism".

[Blue Lion]

As a matter of fact, no. In here in Internet, from the creation of WWW in 1993, we have come and set our own rules and such to this very day. The fact that the Internet was not watched over in the beginning, makes it an ideal way to simulate paradise world, as we have. We have created our very own culture composed of trash like Lolcats, Pedobear, Rick Roll. Jokes, material and art only understandable within the environment of the Internet. Now the world governments are trying to suppress our way of live with Internet monitoring and other Internet censoring laws. While they try to create laws that will affect our way of having fun, they are mostly not affected by the civil rights of the people of the Internet, for example the British law to save all the emails up to an year.

The only worry is that if the world entities such as USA or EU go too far in usurping the rights of the Internet people, Internet might fought back. Already we have seen it in the form of Anonymous DDOS attacking sites. The Internet people is not that far off concept. Pirate Parties are basically people that used to communicate and socialize in Internet, only to find that governments try to limit what they can do.

Wow that was a big long "There are no rules on the internet" which ignores things like user agreements, disclaimers, laws and other things that kinda... you know... shoot a hole in that.

"We watched ourselves" No you didn't. The laws and regulations on the companies that owned the sites and the servers watched you. They have had rules forever.
If you sign up for a site or sign up for hosting, there is a long list of stuff you have to read and agree to. They don't do that cause it's fun.

This is hilarious. You guys fight back against the US government and then they charge you with terrorism.

[cloneof]

I'm not saying that there are no rules in the Internet, I'm just saying that our concept of laws are just diffrent. As we have socialized in a world with no need for concept such as politics, that is neither without concept of real space. Before the real world did try to gain more power within this ultimate tool of democracy (such is the Internet called these days, as you were free to say all you wanted) the Internet was not considered a whole entity, as we were required not to. You call me Hilarius, read Telecom, that's more Hilarius.

I'm not saying that the Internet is a world filled with anarchy, nor control. I'm saying that Internet is beyond such concept, Internet is global and yet we believe that it's global regulation (trough copyright) is bad.

[Flipside]

Kind of interesting ongoing story here, Pirate Bay are now claiming for a retrial because it appears the Judge is a member of 2 seperate Copyright representative boards, and that it is just as easy to search on Google as Pirate Bay.

First argument holds some water, the second doesn't, there's a difference between a search engine and a torrent-tracker.

[The E]

But a Torrent tracker without a search engine to point you towards the .torrent files is pretty useless. IIRC, the trial wasn't only about the tracker, but also about the repository of .torrent files the Pirate Bay kept searchable online.

[Flipside]

Well, the argument is that, because PB can tell the user how many people are sharing the file etc, it's assisting in Piracy, not sure whether that's going to hold water, but personally, I think the Judges links with Copyright organisations are the most interesting, the Google thing is arguing points of law, but the simple fact that the Judge may have been facing a conflict of interest and didn't even bring up the possibility of it until after the trial is very interesting.

Not sure what the legal status of something like that is where they are being tried, but I'd say that stands more chance of succeeding as an appeal.

Edit: At the end of the day, they will most likely be found guilty, strictly speaking they are guilty, if people want to pirate that's one thing, but to pretend it is anything other than what it is, is silly. The only time I consider downloading a game to be 'legal' is when you already own the game you are downloading.

Yes, there's a lot that Media companies could do, Steam proved that dropping prices increased sales more than proportionally with Video Games, and even went so far as to say that if the prices were half what they are now, game companies would probably make more profit from their games, not less, so greed has got the better of both sides, but the problem isn't going to stop until both sides address it.

[Blue Lion]

I'm not saying that there are no rules in the Internet, I'm just saying that our concept of laws are just diffrent.

That's great. You don't get to enforce them. Governments do!

When you use the internet you sign tons of contracts, and if you break them, they can take you to court!

As we have socialized in a world with no need for concept such as politics, that is neither without concept of real space. Before the real world did try to gain more power within this ultimate tool of democracy (such is the Internet called these days, as you were free to say all you wanted) the Internet was not considered a whole entity, as we were required not to. You call me Hilarius, read Telecom, that's more Hilarius.

Wait, you don't need politics but you are a tool of democracy?

I do stand by my previous statement of "hilarious".

I'm not saying that the Internet is a world filled with anarchy, nor control. I'm saying that Internet is beyond such concept, Internet is global and yet we believe that it's global regulation (trough copyright) is bad.

And you would be wrong. Because you think that somehow these companies operate in some alternate reality. The people on the internet lives in countries, those countries have laws. You are bound to follow those laws.

If this is the best argument you can come up with, I weep for any sort of effective resistance to government oversight.

[Blue Lion]

But a Torrent tracker without a search engine to point you towards the .torrent files is pretty useless. IIRC, the trial wasn't only about the tracker, but also about the repository of .torrent files the Pirate Bay kept searchable online.

The concept of a torrent isn't wrong. In fact, it's a great idea. The problem is those torrents are almost always copyrighted material and places like TPB actively encourage people to traffic in them.

[Inquisitor]

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/04/27/google-guilty-pirate-bay

I agree with the comment posted at the bottom of the news post.