[Bobboau]

if I never sell the DVD though I can not make money off it.

[Blue Lion]

if I never sell the DVD though I can not make money off it.

You're getting the value of a DVD without having given any money for it.

Do you know objects can be worth money even if they are never sold? (Paintings, for instance)

[Bobboau]

I bought the DVD, it was in a spindle of 100.

better yet, what if I never burn it, just watch it once or twice then delete it because it's takeing up too much space

[Blue Lion]

I bought the DVD, it was in a spindle of 100.

better yet, what if I never burn it, just watch it once or twice then delete it because it's takeing up too much space

It still has a value.

I buy a DVD, watch it and throw it away. It had a value while I had it.

The work is what has the value. That's why DVDs with movies on them are worth more than blanks. The work itself has value.

People sell it, buy it, own it.

[Send in the TMF]

Don't they have ways for people to purchase rights to a song to use it how they see fit (like you're asking)?

No, they want to milk you for all the money they can. And this is why this entire argument on piracy is flawed, both sides try to portray themselves as the "good guys" then rip each other off.

Music: moving/copying the data is illegal no mater what. (stuff like ripping the music from disk to Itunes) (or in reverse)
Movies: Same thing
Games: Buying a "license" to "install" the game for personal use X times. (this is subverted by pirates disabling this making an easier to get/use product: See Spore) (also, some games don't have this.)

all in all, both sides just want the other to ether die or give stuff for free.

[Blue Lion]

No, they want to milk you for all the money they can. And this is why this entire argument on piracy is flawed, both sides try to portray themselves as the "good guys" then rip each other off.

Songs cannot be purchased where the user has to pay royalties every time they use it? Really? I just made that up?

Music: moving/copying the data is illegal no mater what. (stuff like ripping the music from disk to Itunes) (or in reverse)
Movies: Same thing
Games: Buying a "license" to "install" the game for personal use X times. (this is subverted by pirates disabling this making an easier to get/use product: See Spore) (also, some games don't have this.)

all in all, both sides just want the other to ether die or give stuff for free.

You're not showing why these actions aren't in the owners best interest?

You want to pay a small one time fee and be able to have access to that work at any time, on any medium, forever and ever and ever? That's never going to happen. No company is going to provide you, for free, the means of putting a work you bought 30 years ago on a new format because you like it better.

[Mr. Vega]

I understand literally the words coming out of your mouth but the argument itself is so disconnected it makes no sense. I'm trying to piece together the parts you're saying.

You're saying that these music companies (and I suppose movie companies etc etc) misrepresent their clients (Who I might add almost surely signed a formal contract on all this)? Ok, the solution is simple. If these artists are always getting the shaft in terms of how these companies work... THEY SHOULD STOP WORKING WITH THEM.

You're acting like artists are children that don't sign contracts (and fail to resign all the time). Why aren't these artists revolting against these companies and joining other ones that DO operate in a way that you feel is the best for this century or whatever?

Do you really think the piracy in these areas is going to help these artists? You're increasing their popularity and lowering their sales.

Is it entirely possible that most of them just don't care and are happy with the companies they are with? I don't understand why it's YOUR responsibility to do some civil disobedience to show these artists they're part of the machine. Why isn't it the artists responsibility to do what's best for their work?

Until 1978, copyright only lasted 52 years in the U.S. -- and then only if you remembered to renew it. There were other technical lapses that could result in the inadvertent loss of copyright -- it wasn't really user-friendly.

And the most obnoxious feature of the law was that some authors outlived their copyright. Their most popular works would go into public domain while they were still alive and counting on the income. It's like revoking someone's Social Security at age 72, just because they had the temerity not to die when demographics predicted they would.

Since 1978, the law was changed so that copyright lasted until a certain number of years after the author's death. So not only did the author never outlive the copyright, but the author's dependents could continue to derive income from it for some time.

Also, copyright began, not when the work was listed with the Library of Congress, but rather from the moment of creation.

But there were loopholes. If you wrote something as an employee of a company that paid you a salary for creating it, then your writing was a "work made for hire" and the copyright belonged to the company. You had no rights.

Here's where the ugly stuff begins. A lot of publishers began routinely requiring writers to sign contracts that declared that what they wrote was a "work for hire," so that the authors wouldn't own any part of their own work. Of course the companies didn't actually hire the writers and give them benefits, like real employees. It was basically highway robbery -- the companies demanded that either the writers sign their names to a lie and give up all their rights, or the company wouldn't publish it.

Only a few of us were stubborn enough to refuse to sign work for hire contracts. It was an expensive moral quibble, but I have real objections to perjuring myself and pretending that I was hired by a company when in fact I never was. If I took all the risks and wrote something on spec, then the copyright should belong to me. I'd license them to do whatever was needed, but I wouldn't, in effect, declare them to be the author of my work.

Who Are the Thieves in This House?

So it's pretty hilarious to hear record company executives and movie studio executives get all righteous about copyright. They've been manipulating copyright laws for years, and all the manipulations were designed to steal everything they could from the actual creators of the work.

Do you think these companies care about the money that the actual creators of the work are being deprived of when people copy CDs and DVDs?

That was written by Orson Scott Card, who is as conservative a political writer as they come. Do you honestly think artists have any other choice than to get a ****ty deal? That's why its called a monopoly.

Basically you're telling me these guys ran these servers that are wildly popular, have massive amounts of data going back and forth, can look at any moment and see tons of illegal stuff and just flat out had no idea what was going on?

So you're saying that just because they provide a service that might make it easy to download illegal material, they have to contribute an enormous expenditure to police the traffic? To identify all the illegal downloads and them shut down? And secondly, how on earth would they do it? By looking at filenames? Are you that naive? To do so with any hope of effectiveness would require turning download software into spyware. I dare you to say that would be ok. I double dog dare you.

See, your arguments look good so long as you delete any uncomfortable facts and implications.

[Mr. Vega]

I guess we need to make cars illegal if they can be used to transport drugs across the border, unless the carmakers pony up the cash for border patrol.

[Blue Lion]

That was written by Orson Scott Card, who is as conservative a political writer as they come. Do you honestly think artists have any other choice than to get a ****ty deal? That's why its called a monopoly.

Firstly, I have no idea why him being a conservative has anything to do with it.

Secondly, he most certainly agrees that these companies do own the rights to the works.

Thirdly, he admits that an artist is not forced to work with these companies, but should if they expect a grand paycheck.

This gives no contradictory evidence to anything I've said. Why isn't some company coming in and setting up rules that are more favorable to artists? Clearly if all the artists hate it, it should be a no brainer. Right?

So you're saying that just because they provide a service that might make it easy to download illegal material, they have to contribute an enormous expenditure to police the traffic? To identify all the illegal downloads and them shut down? I guess we need to make cars illegal if they can be used to transport drugs across the border. and Secondly, how on earth would they do it? By looking at filenames? Are you that naive? To do so with an hope of effectiveness would require turning download software into spyware.

See, your arguments look good so long as you delete any uncomfortable facts and implications.

To answer the first questions, yes and yes.

Secondly, those same cars ARE policed (by police no less) all the time.

How would it be done? I'll take a stab. Forced registration of users possibly by fee. All seeded material must be reviewed and checked off as legal. Any illegal material should be deleted. Kinda like how... I dunno, almost everyone else does it.

Wait, that's not the free, anything goes file sharing? Exactly.

They created the site. No one made them do it. They picked the rules they wanted to operate by. That way leads to massive amounts of theft. Left unchecked that could lead to a change by force of law. One I'm sure people won't approve of.

You guys seem to think if you keep stealing stuff hand over fist eventually these companies that spend billions on these works are just gonna go "Ok you win, have it all for free".

[Bobboau]

ok, so if I go over to a friends house and watch a DVD that he bought how is this ethically different from streaming it off of his server?

[Blue Lion]

ok, so if I go over to a friends house and watch a DVD that he bought how is this ethically different from streaming it off of his server?

Does the user rights given when purchased give the owner rights to show his movie for others for free? There you go. You don't get to take it home with you when he's done.

If the user rights say you and only you can watch this, then showing it to other people probably is wrong. But you or I don't get to decide the rules, the owner of the work does.

[Mr. Vega]

That was written by Orson Scott Card, who is as conservative a political writer as they come. Do you honestly think artists have any other choice than to get a ****ty deal? That's why its called a monopoly.

Firstly, I have no idea why him being a conservative has anything to do with it.

Secondly, he most certainly agrees that these companies do own the rights to the works.

Thirdly, he admits that an artist is not forced to work with these companies, but should if they expect a grand paycheck.

This gives no contradictory evidence to anything I've said. Why isn't some company coming in and setting up rules that are more favorable to artists? Clearly if all the artists hate it, it should be a no brainer. Right?

Cause the RIAA and MPAA is a grand alliance of all the big companies to set monolithic standards and practices, so IT'S THE ONLY ****ING GAME IN TOWN. Because if you want any money at all you'll have to commit perjury and say they the company employed you when it didn't. Legally, sure, it's the companies right to do whatever the **** they want. But is what they've done remotely moral or ethical? Just please, stop pretending that artist-publisher agreements are remotely fair to the artists. Argue on a purely legal basis and you'll last longer.

Secondly, those same cars ARE policed (by police no less) all the time.

With taxpayers money. You think Ford should pay to stop incoming drug trucks (and outgoing firearm trucks) if their models are being used?

How would it be done? I'll take a stab. Forced registration of users possibly by fee. All seeded material must be reviewed and checked off as legal. Any illegal material should be deleted. Kinda like how... I dunno, almost everyone else does it.

That's just artificially cutting down the number of users and total torrents to make it easier to police. At the current volume of traffic? There's just too many torrents to approve. You're saying that as long as the site functions are crippled beforehand it'll be easy. You're asking Ford to approve every trip you take with that truck of theirs that you bought before you can take it. Lovely.

[Bobboau]

but as I said, how is it different from streaming it from his server, it's a slightly different issue than torrenting, but it is still considered by most to be a form of piracy.

how is watching a DVD at someone else's house (or them bringing it to your house) different from watching it from there server, in both cases you never have possession of a copy of the file, you simply get to view it.

[Mr. Vega]

Further more, TPB was a ****ing SEARCH ENGINE. And it's being held accountable for what it finds, instead of say, the people who put up the stuff that it does its job in finding? Does Google partake in illegal behavoir if it links to sites advocating the secession of Texas from the US, by violent means if possible? No. Because search engines are protected by Freedom of Speech laws. You can't jail someone because they did nothing more than give you directions to a child porn store. All they did was give directions.

[Mr. Vega]

ok, so if I go over to a friends house and watch a DVD that he bought how is this ethically different from streaming it off of his server?

Does the user rights given when purchased give the owner rights to show his movie for others for free? There you go. You don't get to take it home with you when he's done.

If the user rights say you and only you can watch this, then showing it to other people probably is wrong. But you or I don't get to decide the rules, the owner of the work does.

You mean the publisher of the work, cause in the case of the movie and music industries, they're the ones that own the copyrights. Most authors are smart enough to realize that consumers passing their stuff around is free advertising. That's how the hit machine works. No wonder sales are down now.

[Hippo]

i am in a coffee shop using skype or whatever video chatting with my girlfriend, and someone behind me is watching a movie being played on any public (read analog through antenna style) television channel on the shop's tvs, and my girlfriend can see and understand it. is this piracy? what about if i tilt the camera so she can see better or turn the volume or mic gain up?

[Blue Lion]

Cause the RIAA and MPAA is a grand alliance of all the big companies to set monolithic standards and practices, so IT'S THE ONLY ****ING GAME IN TOWN. Because if you want any money at all you'll have to commit perjury and say they the company employed you when it didn't. Legally, sure, it's the companies right to do whatever the **** they want. But is what they've done remotely moral or ethical? Just please, stop pretending that artist-publisher agreements are remotely fair to the artists.

I don't give a rat's ass if it's "fair" for the artist. They signed the damn contract.

You're telling me there is no way I could exist, as an artist, without a music company? None? Zero?

I can't do local concerts? Produce my own CDs? I can't create a website that sells my music in a format or form I see fit?

Oh wait I can? AMAZING.

With taxpayers money. You think Ford should pay to stop incoming drug trucks (and outgoing firearm trucks) if their models are being used?

Ford in this example is the artist? It's the owner of the work to determine how to distribute the work. I'm not really sure the point you're driving at (PUN!)

But to the overall example. A road would be a government project, owned by the government, regulated by law. Wouldn't TPB be a private project, owned by the TPB, regulated by law? I'm trying to find the difference.

That's just artificially cutting down the number of users and total torrents to make it easier to police.

How is that artificial? It's not a random selection of people, a forced queue, or limited bandwidth. It's security screening that most private trading companies in fact...... do. It keeps anonymous illegal traffickers out.

What it would do is cut down on illegal trafficking of items by forcing people to put their names (so to speak) on their illegal uploads and downloads. That is not artificial, that's designed intent.

At the current volume of traffic? There's just too many torrents to approve. You're saying that as long as the site functions are crippled beforehand it'll be easy.

Well no, I expect once a system is in place the amount of traffic will decrease.... dramatically. That was kind of the damn point, to eliminate the massive illegal file sharing.

"You can't do that! You'll cripple all the illegal transfers going on!"

"... I know."

You're asking Ford to approve every trip you take with that truck of theirs that you bought before you can take it. Lovely.

No actually Ford (I assume who would be a music company or movie company since it is their product you are using) lay out pretty specific guidelines for how to use their product.

They all have little lists in tiny type that state what you can and can't do with the thing you have bought.

And quite frankly yes, these companies ARE trying to track down all the use of their works to make sure they're used legally. And yes, I can see how they would be mad at places that gave almost unrestricted access to their works for free.

[Blue Lion]

but as I said, how is it different from streaming it from his server, it's a slightly different issue than torrenting, but it is still considered by most to be a form of piracy.

Are you asking my why YouTube deletes clips of copyrighted material off their site? That sounds really close to what you're asking.

how is watching a DVD at someone else's house (or them bringing it to your house) different from watching it from there server, in both cases you never have possession of a copy of the file, you simply get to view it.

Further research required! But as a quick stab, I see places do this all the time. Hulu does it and quite frankly TV stations do it. I'm pretty sure they don't just buy the DVDs for 19.99 at WalMart.

[Inquisitor]

ok, so if I go over to a friends house and watch a DVD that he bought how is this ethically different from streaming it off of his server?

If its really streaming, and its only you watching it, it probably isn't different in the eyes of the law. Its up to your friend to make sure you don't copy it, so his streaming tech should be implemented in a way that is reasonably configured to prevent copying.

That's why you can stream iTunes media to up to 5 computers at a time. Thaa's why DVD's have that notice at the beginning saying something to the effect of "you're allowed private exhibitions."

As always, I am not a lawyer, YMMV

[Ghostavo]

I'm actually wanting to hear Blue Lion's opinion on Google's and every other search engine's fault on linking copyrighted material.

Pirate Bay (from what I know about it) needs people to put links to copyrighted material there, but Google, and by default every other search engine, actively searches content which includes copyrighted material.