The next 'war on drugs'... [Archive] - Page 2

velik_m

06-02-2011, 08:38 AM

The Right to Read

by Richard Stallman

This article appeared in the February 1997 issue of Communications of the ACM (Volume 40, Number 2).

From The Road To Tycho, a collection of articles about the antecedents of the Lunarian Revolution, published in Luna City in 2096.

For Dan Halbert, the road to Tycho began in college—when Lissa Lenz asked to borrow his computer. Hers had broken down, and unless she could borrow another, she would fail her midterm project. There was no one she dared ask, except Dan.

This put Dan in a dilemma. He had to help her—but if he lent her his computer, she might read his books. Aside from the fact that you could go to prison for many years for letting someone else read your books, the very idea shocked him at first. Like everyone, he had been taught since elementary school that sharing books was nasty and wrong—something that only pirates would do.

And there wasn't much chance that the SPA—the Software Protection Authority—would fail to catch him. In his software class, Dan had learned that each book had a copyright monitor that reported when and where it was read, and by whom, to Central Licensing. (They used this information to catch reading pirates, but also to sell personal interest profiles to retailers.) The next time his computer was networked, Central Licensing would find out. He, as computer owner, would receive the harshest punishment—for not taking pains to prevent the crime.

Of course, Lissa did not necessarily intend to read his books. She might want the computer only to write her midterm. But Dan knew she came from a middle-class family and could hardly afford the tuition, let alone her reading fees. Reading his books might be the only way she could graduate. He understood this situation; he himself had had to borrow to pay for all the research papers he read. (Ten percent of those fees went to the researchers who wrote the papers; since Dan aimed for an academic career, he could hope that his own research papers, if frequently referenced, would bring in enough to repay this loan.)

Later on, Dan would learn there was a time when anyone could go to the library and read journal articles, and even books, without having to pay. There were independent scholars who read thousands of pages without government library grants. But in the 1990s, both commercial and nonprofit journal publishers had begun charging fees for access. By 2047, libraries offering free public access to scholarly literature were a dim memory.

There were ways, of course, to get around the SPA and Central Licensing. They were themselves illegal. Dan had had a classmate in software, Frank Martucci, who had obtained an illicit debugging tool, and used it to skip over the copyright monitor code when reading books. But he had told too many friends about it, and one of them turned him in to the SPA for a reward (students deep in debt were easily tempted into betrayal). In 2047, Frank was in prison, not for pirate reading, but for possessing a debugger.

Dan would later learn that there was a time when anyone could have debugging tools. There were even free debugging tools available on CD or downloadable over the net. But ordinary users started using them to bypass copyright monitors, and eventually a judge ruled that this had become their principal use in actual practice. This meant they were illegal; the debuggers' developers were sent to prison.

Programmers still needed debugging tools, of course, but debugger vendors in 2047 distributed numbered copies only, and only to officially licensed and bonded programmers. The debugger Dan used in software class was kept behind a special firewall so that it could be used only for class exercises.

It was also possible to bypass the copyright monitors by installing a modified system kernel. Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even entire free operating systems, that had existed around the turn of the century. But not only were they illegal, like debuggers—you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that.

Dan concluded that he couldn't simply lend Lissa his computer. But he couldn't refuse to help her, because he loved her. Every chance to speak with her filled him with delight. And that she chose him to ask for help, that could mean she loved him too.

Dan resolved the dilemma by doing something even more unthinkable—he lent her the computer, and told her his password. This way, if Lissa read his books, Central Licensing would think he was reading them. It was still a crime, but the SPA would not automatically find out about it. They would only find out if Lissa reported him.

Of course, if the school ever found out that he had given Lissa his own password, it would be curtains for both of them as students, regardless of what she had used it for. School policy was that any interference with their means of monitoring students' computer use was grounds for disciplinary action. It didn't matter whether you did anything harmful—the offense was making it hard for the administrators to check on you. They assumed this meant you were doing something else forbidden, and they did not need to know what it was.

Students were not usually expelled for this—not directly. Instead they were banned from the school computer systems, and would inevitably fail all their classes.

Later, Dan would learn that this kind of university policy started only in the 1980s, when university students in large numbers began using computers. Previously, universities maintained a different approach to student discipline; they punished activities that were harmful, not those that merely raised suspicion.

Lissa did not report Dan to the SPA. His decision to help her led to their marriage, and also led them to question what they had been taught about piracy as children. The couple began reading about the history of copyright, about the Soviet Union and its restrictions on copying, and even the original United States Constitution. They moved to Luna, where they found others who had likewise gravitated away from the long arm of the SPA. When the Tycho Uprising began in 2062, the universal right to read soon became one of its central aims.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

:depressed

Blake

06-02-2011, 10:39 AM

I guess "sharing is caring", is being changed to "sharing is crime".

On Netflix, etc, is it possible to be logged on with the same username and password on two or more different computers at the same time?

Blake

06-02-2011, 10:40 AM

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

:depressed

bit of an imaginary stretch, imo.

ElNono

06-02-2011, 03:09 PM

On Netflix, etc, is it possible to be logged on with the same username and password on two or more different computers at the same time?

Well, that is a technically sound solution to the problem. Unfortunately, we're talking lobbyists and politicians here.

I also could see where you make this a misdemeanor, at the most. But over $500 worth (obviously, that's not the price of the subscription, but the alleged stolen property) and the penalty is a felony. smh.

LnGrrrR

06-02-2011, 07:32 PM

bit of an imaginary stretch, imo.

Of course you'd think that. :)

Then again, it's taken to the extreme as a literary point; at what path does it stop? At what point do people go "That's enough!"

Remember, these are the same citizens who think torture is A-OK, by and large.

Blake

06-02-2011, 07:55 PM

Of course you'd think that. :)

Then again, it's taken to the extreme as a literary point; at what path does it stop? At what point do people go "That's enough!"

Remember, these are the same citizens who think torture is A-OK, by and large.

In that extreme scenario, the principle changed.

In the real world, the principle appears to remain constant. It's that the law is trying to keep up with the technology.

velik_m

06-19-2011, 04:06 AM

5SaFTm2bcac

Blake

06-21-2011, 01:24 PM

tldw

LnGrrrR

06-21-2011, 03:25 PM

In that extreme scenario, the principle changed.

In the real world, the principle appears to remain constant. It's that the law is trying to keep up with the technology.

I think you and I differ on what constitutes extremity, and how likely the authorities are to lead towards that outcome.

Blake

06-21-2011, 03:38 PM

I think you and I differ on what constitutes extremity, and how likely the authorities are to lead towards that outcome.

I guess we do.

I think the idea that the right to read might be a target by 2062 is laughable.

LnGrrrR

06-21-2011, 03:47 PM

I guess we do.

I think the idea that the right to read might be a target by 2062 is laughable.

Eh, it's not about the "right to read". It's just that most of our books will probably be digital, which has its pros and cons. For instance, see the few instances when books have been "edited" by Amazon without customer acknowledgement or approval.

As more and more objects go "digital", users give up more and more control over their ownership.

And while you're skeptical of widespread changes such as the one listed in the scenario, do you think anyone 50 years ago thought that our government would have the right to go through their mail looking for keywords that might indicate terrorist activity? (Sure it's email, but just because it's easier to search through doesn't necessarily make the analogy wrong.)

What about all the closed circuit video in some cities? How about facial recognition technology that scans your face as you enter an arena and then matches it up with a criminal database?

Honestly, there's no way to truly predict what the future will be 50 years from now. I'm pretty sure no one would have predicted gene splicing, the prevalence of computers, or any number of other factors.

Blake

06-21-2011, 04:44 PM

Eh, it's not about the "right to read". It's just that most of our books will probably be digital, which has its pros and cons. For instance, see the few instances when books have been "edited" by Amazon without customer acknowledgement or approval.

As more and more objects go "digital", users give up more and more control over their ownership.

books getting edited after purchase is a different issue altogether and not one that I found in the story.

I did find "right to read" in the story.

Still laughably extreme, imo.

And while you're skeptical of widespread changes such as the one listed in the scenario, do you think anyone 50 years ago thought that our government would have the right to go through their mail looking for keywords that might indicate terrorist activity? (Sure it's email, but just because it's easier to search through doesn't necessarily make the analogy wrong.)

Mmm....hard to say how seriously people in general took George Orwell.

What about all the closed circuit video in some cities? How about facial recognition technology that scans your face as you enter an arena and then matches it up with a criminal database?

Honestly, there's no way to truly predict what the future will be 50 years from now. I'm pretty sure no one would have predicted gene splicing, the prevalence of computers, or any number of other factors.

What about all of that?

One of the points of the story is that in the future, only the person that purchases the item will have the right to view or read it.

Regardless of technology, the fear that in 50+ years it will be illegal to borrow a book without publisher permission is extreme, imo.

LnGrrrR

06-21-2011, 05:33 PM

Mmm....hard to say how seriously people in general took George Orwell.

I think you missed my point. Orwell stands as an example of someone who was able to predict the future, somewhere, regarding government's ability to monitor their citizen's actions.

Regardless of technology, the fear that in 50+ years it will be illegal to borrow a book without publisher permission is extreme, imo.

Well, of course. That's like saying that Jonathan Swift's book, "A Modest Proposal" is extreme, and therefore pointless, which misses the point entirely.

No one honestly believes the "right to read" will be taken away. However, our ability to control what we own (which is the crux of many argument regarding digital media nowadays) is what is up for debate.

Blake

06-21-2011, 07:09 PM

No one honestly believes the "right to read" will be taken away.

Good, we agree. I was beginning to wonder.

However, our ability to control what we own (which is the crux of many argument regarding digital media nowadays) is what is up for debate.

Interesting. I didn't realize the ability to control what we own in this manner was up for debate. You have a link?

LnGrrrR

06-21-2011, 07:18 PM

Interesting. I didn't realize the ability to control what we own in this manner was up for debate. You have a link?

The very decision on whether or not we are allowed to copy media, and whether or not we are allowed to redistribute, are both questions of the extent of our ownership of an item. For instance, our right to own one copy doesn't extend to the right to physically reproduce said copy and distribute it freely.

In this case, we don't necessarily own the item, we own a license to listen to the music contained on the item. Otherwise, there wouldn't be an issue with copying a CD a few hundred times, since you own the original and burned CDs.

Another instance of how we "own" things is in regards to the book issue mentioned above. If Amazon can edit a book after you've bought it, without your permission, then your ownership of said book is certainly less than the ownership conferred upon buying a hard-copy.

So, given these instances, it's not necessarily a stretch to imagine a future world in which most content was centrally stored, whereby our "right to read" may be limited by controlling agencies (namely, those controlling the access). In this case, right to read isn't an absolute (ie. right to read or not read), but rather a way to think about what rights a consumer may or may not have in a digitally-dominant future.

You've got people who are trying to get playing cloud-storage mp3s defined as "public performance". Given that, what's stopping them from describing cloud-stored literature as "public performance" as well?

Blake

06-22-2011, 08:54 AM

The very decision on whether or not we are allowed to copy media, and whether or not we are allowed to redistribute, are both questions of the extent of our ownership of an item. For instance, our right to own one copy doesn't extend to the right to physically reproduce said copy and distribute it freely.

In this case, we don't necessarily own the item, we own a license to listen to the music contained on the item. Otherwise, there wouldn't be an issue with copying a CD a few hundred times, since you own the original and burned CDs.

You're talking about intellectual property.

When you purchase a CD, you don't purchase the intellectual property, you purchase a copy of it that comes with copyright restrictions.

Most people understand the concept. Aside from messageboard posters that are feeling robbed from not being able to download off of torrent sites any more, there's really not much of a debate about it.

Another instance of how we "own" things is in regards to the book issue mentioned above. If Amazon can edit a book after you've bought it, without your permission, then your ownership of said book is certainly less than the ownership conferred upon buying a hard-copy.

link?

So, given these instances, it's not necessarily a stretch to imagine a future world in which most content was centrally stored, whereby our "right to read" may be limited by controlling agencies (namely, those controlling the access). In this case, right to read isn't an absolute (ie. right to read or not read), but rather a way to think about what rights a consumer may or may not have in a digitally-dominant future.

I think it's a huge stretch.

You've got people who are trying to get playing cloud-storage mp3s defined as "public performance". Given that, what's stopping them from describing cloud-stored literature as "public performance" as well?

who are these people?

LnGrrrR

06-22-2011, 02:12 PM

You're talking about intellectual property.

When you purchase a CD, you don't purchase the intellectual property, you purchase a copy of it that comes with copyright restrictions.

Of course, but the physical media it's using is a factor. If it took six months to burn a CD, I don't think the RIAA would care much about pirating.

Most people understand the concept. Aside from messageboard posters that are feeling robbed from not being able to download off of torrent sites any more, there's really not much of a debate about it.

Coming from the person who tried to argue that it should be considered theft for pages and pages, then backtracked and said that it was just your definition of theft, I'll give that as much merit as I feel it deserves.

link?

To be fair, they didn't edit the book, but deleted illegal copies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jul/17/amazon-kindle-1984

However, publishers of books can edit them after users have them. While I'm still looking for an official link, this post explains the process:

http://207-171-168-158.amazon.com/kdpforums/message.jspa?messageID=75820

So the ability exists. In any way, it's less "yours" than if you had a hard copy, wouldn't you agree?

I think it's a huge stretch.

Wait, you're saying you think it's a "huge stretch" that in 50 years, most of the content that people read/listen to will be stored in a central location? Really?

who are these people?

http://blog.fatdrop.co.uk/who-reigns-in-the-cloud-and-is-it-a-storm-in-a-teacup-for-labels

Amazon have sidestepped the legal aspect by claiming that their service’s functionality is comparable to that of an external drive – nobody needs a public performance license to save or play back their data on one of those, so why should storage in the cloud be any different?

The legal objection to this might be to argue that since the service is operated by a commercial concern in order to make a profit, streaming from an Amazon locker should be seen as a public performance… but this would probably be stretching the point beyond the sympathies of most music customers. Commentators are hurrying to analyse Amazon’s move: is it designed to support a forthcoming Amazon tablet PC? Is it simply a spoiler move against Google and Apple (…or indeed Ubuntu, who offered one of the first viable cloud music solutions over two years ago with their Ubuntu One (https://one.ubuntu.com/) tie-in with download store 7Digital)? It’s likely that these questions will be cleared up by the passage of time, but for labels they should be fairly irrelevant… the question that interests us is: will these services help or hinder music sales?

But I guess this is already decided, and only being argued over by certain posters who want to dload movies for free :( :( :(

Blake

06-22-2011, 03:50 PM

Of course, but the physical media it's using is a factor. If it took six months to burn a CD, I don't think the RIAA would care much about pirating.

huh? Physical media is irrelevant to intellectual property.

What does 6 months have to do with anything?

6 months or 6 seconds. An illegal copy is illegal, regardless of how little the RIAA cares about it.

Coming from the person who tried to argue that it should be considered theft for pages and pages, then backtracked and said that it was just your definition of theft, I'll give that as much merit as I feel it deserves.

There's no backtracking from me. Copyright infringement is by colloquial definition 'theft'.

To be fair, they didn't edit the book, but deleted illegal copies.

I figured.

However, publishers of books can edit them after users have them. While I'm still looking for an official link, this post explains the process:

http://207-171-168-158.amazon.com/kdpforums/message.jspa?messageID=75820

So the ability exists. In any way, it's less "yours" than if you had a hard copy, wouldn't you agree?

That post explains jack shit.

Try this link:

http://www.ehow.com/how_6522046_become-kindle-author.html

From what I can tell, once you hit that "publish" button, it's a done deal. No editing.

What I would assume the proper way to do it is to take your original content, edit it, and publish it again as a 2nd edition, just like a college text book.

Wait, you're saying you think it's a "huge stretch" that in 50 years, most of the content that people read/listen to will be stored in a central location? Really?

No. The rest of your post regarding limiting the "right to read" is a huge stretch.

http://blog.fatdrop.co.uk/who-reigns-in-the-cloud-and-is-it-a-storm-in-a-teacup-for-labels

But I guess this is already decided, and only being argued over by certain posters who want to dload movies for free :( :( :(

I asked who are the people debating this. There is no debate here.

It's only one blogger asking if what Amazon is doing with the cloud drive service can be seen as an illegal public performance.

Since Google has fired up their cloud service as well, I give his and your pondering over the issue little merit.

LnGrrrR

06-22-2011, 04:10 PM

huh? Physical media is irrelevant to intellectual property.

6 months or 6 seconds. An illegal copy is illegal, regardless of how little the RIAA cares about it.

Yes, but in the real world, the ability to duplicate protected works is a much more serious issue when it's quick, cheap and easy.

There's no backtracking from me. Copyright infringement is by colloquial definition 'theft'.

"Colloquial" being the key word there, since we weren't talking about the "colloquial" definition.

That post explains jack shit.

Try this link:

http://www.ehow.com/how_6522046_become-kindle-author.html

From what I can tell, once you hit that "publish" button, it's a done deal. No editing.

If so, then I'm mistaken.

No. The rest of your post regarding limiting the "right to read" is a huge stretch.

What specifically did I mention about the right to read that you find is a stretch?

I asked who are the people debating this. There is no debate here.

It's only one blogger asking if what Amazon is doing with the cloud drive service can be seen as an illegal public performance.

There were quite a few bloggers, actually. Do you expect me to find each instance?

Since Google has fired up their cloud service as well, I give his and your pondering over the issue little merit.

Ah, so it's inherently legal then, and no court case will ever be brought up over it. Good to know.

LnGrrrR

06-22-2011, 04:33 PM

http://www.informationweek.com/cloud-computing/article/229700228

The Wall Street Journal says Apple has reached agreements with Warner Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and EMI, and is expected to conclude a deal with Universal Music Group this week.

Apple's competitors in the emerging media hosting business, Amazon and Google, have gone ahead and launched their own cloud music services without the blessing of music companies, moves that appear to invite copyright litigation.
The legality of cloud music hosting has yet be tested in court, but Amazon and Google have at least some reason to believe the law is on their side: The U.S. Supreme Court in 2009 said it was not a copyright law violation for Cablevision to store DVR recordings made by its customers.

http://blog.chron.com/brokenrecord/2011/05/cloud-music-a-showdown-between-corporations/

When it comes to music, however, things are, pardon the pun, a bit cloudy. Unlike a document you wrote or a photo you took, storing music files on a server that doesn’t belong to you raises all sorts of bizarre legal questions. The general rule, when it comes to copyright law, is that you are free to make ONE copy of any song you have purchased. Say you bought a CD and then ripped the songs from it onto your computer. That’s your copy. Making another copy of that file to move to a server somewhere is infringement, according to the music industry.

Just a few people out there talking.

LnGrrrR

06-22-2011, 04:39 PM

RIAA is cool with the Apple cloud computing though...

http://riaa.com/newsitem.php?content_selector=newsandviews&news_month_filter=6&news_year_filter=2011&id=F7E84594-31F4-57B8-2CFF-86E4E4A74344

Probably because Apple ponied up some licensing fees.

Blake

06-22-2011, 04:56 PM

Yes, but in the real world, the ability to duplicate protected works is a much more serious issue when it's quick, cheap and easy.

No it's not.

The amount duplicated can make it a more serious issue, not the ability.

I thought we agreed a while back that it is rather quick, easy and cheap to make a mix tape.

"Colloquial" being the key word there, since we weren't talking about the "colloquial" definition.

I absolutely talked about the colloquial definition.

You can check page 3 if you like. It's there right after I mentioned how it's often referred to as theft by law enforcement agencies.

I've never seen anyone in any political, law enforcement, or judicial office implore others to stop calling it theft. Have you?

What specifically did I mention about the right to read that you find is a stretch?

our "right to read" may be limited by controlling agencies (namely, those controlling the access).

in 50+ years?

lol

There were quite a few bloggers, actually. Do you expect me to find each instance?

We got switched up on the quotes.

Let's try again.

You've got people who are trying to get playing cloud-storage mp3s defined as "public performance".

Who are these people that are trying to get playing cloud-storage mp3s defined as "public performance"?

you gave a link to that blogger and he was not trying to get playing cloud-storage mp3s defined as "public performance".

Ah, so it's inherently legal then, and no court case will ever be brought up over it.

Ah, no.

Google has shown that they take a pro-active approach to making sure they abide by the law.

If their lawyers have given them the green light to start the cloud storage service, then I give little merit to the possibility that it's illegal.

Good to know

You're welcome.

Blake

06-22-2011, 05:01 PM

http://www.informationweek.com/cloud-computing/article/229700228

http://blog.chron.com/brokenrecord/2011/05/cloud-music-a-showdown-between-corporations/

Just a few people out there talking.

but not really debating.

LnGrrrR

06-22-2011, 05:06 PM

No it's not.

The amount duplicated can make it a more serious issue, not the ability.

I thought we agreed a while back that it is rather quick, easy and cheap to make a mix tape.

It's much easier to get mp3s out on the cloud than it is to make a mixtape for every person though. The cheaper/easier/quicker it is, the more you can duplicate.

I've never seen anyone in any political, law enforcement, or judicial office implore others to stop calling it theft. Have you?

Judicial probably, since theft has a definitely legal meaning.

in 50+ years?

lol

If Amazon can pull illegal copies of your book without your knowledge, then they can affect your "right to read" per se.

Frankly, if you're relying on any cloud computing, you are at the whims of the people storing that data, your ability to connect to that data, etc etc. You have less hands-on rights than you do if you were holding a book in your hands.

you gave a link to that blogger and he was not trying to get playing cloud-storage mp3s defined as "public performance".

Ah ok. I'll look for that guy; I read it a few weeks ago.

If their lawyers have given them the green light to start the cloud storage service, then I give little merit to the possibility that it's illegal.

But the law isn't defined yet, since there's no precedent set for this sort of incident. I'm hoping you're right.

LnGrrrR

06-22-2011, 05:07 PM

but not really debating.

Not really a debate until someone brings it to court. And if Google ponies up license money, then the RIAA beast will be sated. (Although, I'm not sure why they should have to pay license fees...)

Blake

06-22-2011, 05:28 PM

It's much easier to get mp3s out on the cloud than it is to make a mixtape for every person though. The cheaper/easier/quicker it is, the more you can duplicate.

And it probably will even get faster than that.

But again, speed is not the issue.

Judicial probably, since theft has a definitely legal meaning.

neh, I haven't found any judge that said "stop calling it theft".

I do know of one that said there's a legal difference.

I also know of one that called infringement "no less.....than garden variety theft."

If Amazon can pull illegal copies of your book without your knowledge, then they can affect your "right to read" per se.

If it was an illegal copy, then you never really had the right to read it.

Frankly, if you're relying on any cloud computing, you are at the whims of the people storing that data, your ability to connect to that data, etc etc. You have less hands-on rights than you do if you were holding a book in your hands.

so what? what does that have to do with your right to read?

Ah ok. I'll look for that guy; I read it a few weeks ago.

so it's just one guy wants it to be a "public performance?"

is he a blogger too?

But the law isn't defined yet, since there's no precedent set for this sort of incident. I'm hoping you're right.

It seems to me to be not much more than an online storage shed where only the user has the key.

I don't see it as a big deal.

koriwhat

06-22-2011, 05:41 PM

Guys like the channelsurfing.net owner (http://torrentfreak.com/feds-arrest-owner-of-seized-sports-streaming-domain-110304/)?

Now, you explain to me why the government has to foot the bill for this instead of Disney, News Corp, etc?

awesome comment right here hahhaha

"What's that strange sound I hear? It's like the stomping of Nazi-style jackboots on my broadband connection :o

No, it's OK. It's just the USA's incompetent Immigration and Customs Enforcement guys tripping over the wireless connection and falling flat on their face ....

Whoever would've guessed the biggest copier of Fascist Germany would be the Jewish community in the US of A? If Hitler had any kids I'm sure they could sue for breach of copyright lol."

LnGrrrR

06-22-2011, 07:01 PM

And it probably will even get faster than that.

But again, speed is not the issue.

Since speed affects how much/often you can duplicate, it's tangent.

neh, I haven't found any judge that said "stop calling it theft".

Well, lawyers are technically part of the judicial system, are they not? I haven't found many lawyers who are filing these cases as theft. Feel free to point out otherwise.

I do know of one that said there's a legal difference.

I also know of one that called infringement "no less.....than garden variety theft."

If it was an illegal copy, then you never really had the right to read it.

Sure, but you still had it, and then you didn't. Pretty sure that policemen aren't going to your home to confiscate your hardbacks, illegal or not.

so what? what does that have to do with your right to read?

Well, it doesn't necessarily diminish your "right" to read, but your capability to do certainly.

I'm not sure about the ramifications of a publisher editing an online book. For instance, if you own the 1st ed of a book, and the publisher updates to 2nd ed, but you want to keep 1st ed, do you have a right to keep that license? What if they longer store the 1st ed digitally; are you able to recoup the cost of the book? Etc etc.

so it's just one guy wants it to be a "public performance?"

is he a blogger too?

There's probably more out there. Not sure why you're denigrating bloggers either, offhand. There are lots of non-blogging hack journalists out there too.

It seems to me to be not much more than an online storage shed where only the user has the key.

I don't see it as a big deal.

I don't either, but that said, I'm not sure why the RIAA wants Apple/Google to get licenses. Probably because if Google hosts an illegal mp3, they may be found liable.

Blake

06-22-2011, 11:19 PM

Well, lawyers are technically part of the judicial system, are they not? I haven't found many lawyers who are filing these cases as theft. Feel free to point out otherwise.

There are no prosecutors trying infringement cases as theft.

There are no prosecutors out there that will tell you "don't call it theft."

There are prosecutors that do flat out call it theft.

Sure, but you still had it

illegally

and then you didn't.

because it's illegal

Pretty sure that policemen aren't going to your home to confiscate your hardbacks, illegal or not.

Police? Not sure where you are going with this crazy straw.

To be clear, are you saying that if you knowlingly own an illegal hardback that you should have the right to keep it and read it?

Legally, nobody will probably ever care.

Does that make it right? Morally, I'd say no, but that's up to you.

In the digital future, it's true they'll be more likely to cut that crap out

Well, it doesn't necessarily diminish your "right" to read, but your capability to do certainly.

If you properly pay for a copy of the book, how exactly is your capablity to read it limited?

I'm not sure about the ramifications of a publisher editing an online book. For instance, if you own the 1st ed of a book, and the publisher updates to 2nd ed, but you want to keep 1st ed, do you have a right to keep that license? What if they longer store the 1st ed digitally; are you able to recoup the cost of the book? Etc etc.

Those are questions an author needs to ask any way, regardless if it's online or hard copy.

It's basically a civil matter that the author and publisher should hammer out during contract negotiations:

"8. What About Revisions and Revised Editions?"

http://www.ivanhoffman.com/points.html

There's probably more out there. Not sure why you're denigrating bloggers either, offhand. There are lots of non-blogging hack journalists out there too.

Why should anyone care if some blogger questions if playing cloud-storage mp3s defined as "public performance".

That's different from someone actually trying to get playing cloud-storage mp3s defined as "public performance".

I assumed it would be a politician or a party with a vested interest. Not a blogger.

I don't either, but that said, I'm not sure why the RIAA wants Apple/Google to get licenses. Probably because if Google hosts an illegal mp3, they may be found liable.

I think Google wants to make back up copies of the music to protect the consumer in case something happens to the servers holding the original uploaded material.

I think Google wants to pay up front to be able to make these backup copies and not have any future legal issues with the RIAA.

The RIAA is an entity representing the four major recording labels. From what I can tell, they turned down a $100 million check from Google a month or so ago.

I think the RIAA will end up taking Google's money if they haven't already and allow Google to make these copies.

ElNono

06-23-2011, 12:48 AM

RIAA is going to want a per-copy fee, IMO. They know they have Google by the balls since Google has to compete with Apple and Apple already has a deal in place.

Also, don't forget about ASCAP. Google has a deal for YouTube, but that doesn't mean the same deal applies for non-YouTube content.

LnGrrrR

06-23-2011, 01:40 AM

To be clear, are you saying that if you knowlingly own an illegal hardback that you should have the right to keep it and read it?

Nope. FWIW, those users didn't knowingly own an illegal hardback. It happened to be an illegal copy they purchased. When Google found out, they took the book back.

Again, I have no problem with this, but it's pretty obvious that cloud computing means less "ownership" of the media. (Ie. for now, I can't sell any "itunes" I've bought to someone else.)

If you properly pay for a copy of the book, how exactly is your capablity to read it limited?

Ultimately, while you may "own" the book, that ownership is dependent on you having access to a computer, the servers all working, etc etc. You don't really have to worry about that when you have the book in your hands.

Why should anyone care if some blogger questions if playing cloud-storage mp3s defined as "public performance".

That's different from someone actually trying to get playing cloud-storage mp3s defined as "public performance".

How about this guy?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110506/18425714192/bmi-says-single-person-listening-to-his-own-music-via-cloud-is-public-performance.shtml

Not quite just a blogger.

boutons_deux

06-23-2011, 01:43 AM

Apple won a patent that allows Apple to turn off recording remotely, without permission.

Coupled with geo-location services, could be used to "blackout" recordings in areas around movies and concerts.

Blake

06-23-2011, 09:06 AM

Nope. FWIW, those users didn't knowingly own an illegal hardback. It happened to be an illegal copy they purchased. When Google found out, they took the book back.

Understandably so.

Again, I have no problem with this, but it's pretty obvious that cloud computing means less "ownership" of the media. (Ie. for now, I can't sell any "itunes" I've bought to someone else.)

Ultimately, while you may "own" the book, that ownership is dependent on you having access to a computer, the servers all working, etc etc. You don't really have to worry about that when you have the book in your hands.

Interesting....sounds like cloud computing could spell the end of Half Price Books unless they can adapt.

If consumers are willing to take chances on online books stored on a server while losing out on any possible resell value, then that's on the consumer.

How about this guy?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110506/18425714192/bmi-says-single-person-listening-to-his-own-music-via-cloud-is-public-performance.shtml

Not quite just a blogger.

Is he actively trying to get it called "public performance"?

Blake

06-23-2011, 10:15 AM

awesome comment right here hahhaha

"What's that strange sound I hear? It's like the stomping of Nazi-style jackboots on my broadband connection :o

No, it's OK. It's just the USA's incompetent Immigration and Customs Enforcement guys tripping over the wireless connection and falling flat on their face ....

Whoever would've guessed the biggest copier of Fascist Germany would be the Jewish community in the US of A? If Hitler had any kids I'm sure they could sue for breach of copyright lol."

I'm serious when I say that I'd really like to see you post in here more often.

velik_m

11-17-2011, 01:35 AM

bump

While ReDigi claims to be protected under the first-sale doctrine, the recording industry claims that first sale only protects the sale of a particular copy of a product.
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/105437-riaa-claims-you-do-not-own-your-itunes-music-purchases

i better not move those file, lest they be copied first...

boutons_deux

11-17-2011, 06:22 AM

http://www.mozilla.org/sopa/

====

Under SOPA, private companies will be able to force payment processors to shut down payments to websites by merely claiming the site “engages in, enables or facilitates” infringement. This broad provision could target websites behind important Internet projects such as Tor, the anonymity network that has been vital for protecting activists from government surveillance in Tunisia and Egypt. While Tor is designed to promote free expression, privacy, and human rights (and has had an amazing impact on the Arab Spring), it can unfortunately also be used to mask one’s IP address when downloading copyrighted content, such as music. Corporations concerned about users illegally downloading music could use SOPA to force Visa and Mastercard to cut off donations to Torproject.org—despite Tor’s aim to facilitate human rights activism, not piracy.

Emerging nonprofit whistleblower sites could find themselves in the jaws of SOPA if they post any documents related to corporate corruption or law breaking, if those documents contain trade secrets or are copyrightable. In 2010, Microsoft unsuccessfully tried to knock the whistleblower website Cryptome offline in a comparable situation. Now, the offended corporation may simply send a notice to the payment processor alleging the posted documents violate their rights and the processors will have five days to cut off the whistleblowing site’s service. Those sites could be starved out of existence before they can ever gain traction to defend themselves. Potential whistleblowers wishing to prevent the next Enron could be shut out of the Internet, even though the Enron whistleblower herself has said how important sites like WikiLeaks can be for exposing corporate wrongdoing.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/11/proposed-copyright-bill-threatens-whistleblowing-and-human-rights

ElNono

11-17-2011, 12:00 PM

All in the name of "theft"...

velik_m

11-20-2011, 04:31 PM

Copyright isn't working, says European Commission

People have come to see copyright as a tool of punishment, Europe's technology chief has said in her strongest-yet attack on the current copyright system.

Digital agenda commissioner Neelie Kroes said on Saturday that the creative industries had to embrace rather than resist new technological ways of distributing artistic works. She added that the existing copyright system was not rewarding the vast majority of artists.

"Is the current copyright system the right and only tool to achieve our objectives? Not really," Kroes said in a speech to the Forum D'Avignon thinktank. "Citizens increasingly hear the word copyright and hate what is behind it."

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/communication-breakdown-10000030/copyright-isnt-working-says-european-commission-10024835/

velik_m

12-03-2011, 02:12 AM

Swiss Govt: Downloading Movies and Music Will Stay Legal

...
The overall conclusion of the study is that the current copyright law, under which downloading copyrighted material for personal use is permitted, doesn’t have to change.

Their report begins with noting that when it comes to copying files, the Internet has proven a game-changer. While the photocopier, audio cassette tape and VCR allowed users to make good quality copies of various media, these devices lacked a in-built distribution method. The world-wide web changed all that.

Distribution method or not, the entertainment industries have opposed all these technological inventions out of fear that their businesses would be crushed. This is not the right response according to the Swiss government, which favors the option of putting technology to good use instead of taking the repressive approach.
...

http://torrentfreak.com/swiss-govt-downloading-movies-and-music-will-stay-legal-111202/

velik_m

12-10-2011, 12:56 AM

Dodd slams Google over legislatoin
...
Dodd, who assumed his post in March, notes that the idea of blocking sites is by no means unprecedented. Other supporters of the legislation note Internet providers already block criminal content like child pornography. Citing a more controversial practice, Dodd notes "When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites."
...
Copyright is a limited right, patent is an unlimited right.
...

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118047080

MPAA: Let's be more like China.

ElNono

12-10-2011, 07:52 PM

Two SOPA Writers Become Entertainment Lobbyists

"According to Politico, 'A pair of senior Hill aides at the center of a brewing battle between Hollywood and Silicon Valley are packing their bags for K Street, where they’ll work for two of the entertainment lobby shops (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70149.html) trying to influence their former colleagues in Congress on the very same issue. Allison Halataei, former deputy chief of staff and parliamentarian to House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), and Lauren Pastarnack, a Republican who has served as a senior aide on the Senate Judiciary Committee, worked on online piracy bills that would push Internet companies like Google, Yahoo and Facebook to shut down websites that offer illegal copies of blockbuster films and chart-topping songs.' Techdirt adds, 'Pastarnack went to the MPAA where she'll be "director of government relations" and Halataei to the NMPA (music publishers and songwriters) where she'll be "chief liaison to Capitol Hill." The Politico article linked above notes that this kind of "revolving door" is all too common. It may not be directly corrupt, but to the public it sure feels corrupt (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111209/10151917022/shockingly-unshocking-two-congressional-staffers-who-helped-write-sopapipa-become-entertainment-industry-lobbyists.shtml).'"

velik_m

12-11-2011, 12:35 PM

This is an interesting article about how the younger generations view the copyright:

The Generational Divide in Copyright Morality
...
I don’t pretend to know what the solution to the file-sharing issue is. (Although I’m increasingly convinced that copy protection isn’t it.)

I do know, though, that the TV, movie and record companies’ problems have only just begun. Right now, the customers who can’t even *see* why file sharing might be wrong are still young. But 10, 20, 30 years from now, that crowd will be *everybody*. What will happen then?

http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/the-generational-divide-in-copyright-morality/

Blake

12-11-2011, 05:39 PM

interesting assumption that young customers 30 years from now will still not see why file sharing might be wrong

Winehole23

12-12-2011, 01:43 AM

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/breaking-news-feds-falsely-censor-popular-blog-over-year-deny-all-due-process-hide-all-details.shtml

Winehole23

12-12-2011, 01:48 AM

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/wyden-domain-seizure/

Winehole23

12-12-2011, 01:49 AM

cross posted at:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5504384

boutons_deux

12-12-2011, 09:55 AM

Harvard lawyer: SOPA is unconstitutional

Harvard Law School constitutional expert Laurence Tribe believes the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is unconstitutional.

The legal figure sent a letter to members of Congress this past week, saying that SOPA violates the First Amendment and leads to illegal “prior restraint.”

Tribe also criticized the new provisions in the bill targeting websites’ finances.

“This provision of the bill would give complaining parties the power to stop online advertisers,” he wrote in the letter. “And credit card processors from doing business with a website, merely by filing a unilateral notice accusing the site of being “dedicated to the theft of the U.S. property.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/11/harvard-lawyer-sopa-is-unconstitutional/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

velik_m

12-12-2011, 10:13 AM

Megaupload to Sue Universal, Joins Fight Against SOPA

File-hosting service Megaupload has told TorrentFreak that it will sue Universal for wrongfully taking down its content from YouTube. Universal took action Friday to remove a Megaupload-produced pop video which featured leading artists singing the cyberlocker service’s praises. The move has also prompted the company to enter the SOPA debate, with a call for like-minded people to join forces and fight for an Internet without censorship.
...
http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-to-sue-universal-joins-fight-against-sopa-111212/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

velik_m

12-12-2011, 10:18 AM

interesting assumption that young customers 30 years from now will still not see why file sharing might be wrong

That is a fair point, but casual piracy is already rampant even among older people, who might see it as wrong, but it's more jaywalking wrong, rather than "end of civilization as we know it" wrong. So i think we have an older generation who thinks it's wrong but does it anyway, and a new generation that does it and doesn't even know it might be wrong (i mean if everybody is doing it, it can't be wrong, right?)

boutons_deux

12-14-2011, 02:45 PM

Can a Wikipedia blackout save the Internet?

the bill's "vague language would create devastating new tools for silencing legitimate speech all around the Web."

Websites that run afoul could be de-indexed by search engines, blocked by Internet service providers, and blackballed by payment processors such as Visa or PayPal as court-ordered by the U.S. Attorney General.

Here's a worst-case scenario free speech supporters say is entirely possible: Proxy servers such as those that aided the Arab Spring are also used to stream content that qualifies for copyright infringement. Shut down the proxy server for a SOPA violation, and the voices of protest could be muffled as well.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation breaks down more big beefs with SOPA:

SOPA gives individuals and corporations unprecedented power to silence speech online. Under SOPA, individuals and corporations could send a notice to a site’s payment partners, requiring those partners to cut the site off — even if the site could never be held liable for infringement in a U.S. court. Since many sites depend on this revenue to cover operational costs, even one accusation of infringement could be ruinous.

SOPA gives the government even more power to censor. The Attorney General can “disappear” websites by creating a blacklist and requiring service providers (such as search engines and domain services) to block the sites on the list.

SOPA uses vague language that is sure to be abused. The bill targets nearly any site that hosts user-generated content, or even just has a search function, by failing to provide protections for legal speech.

SOPA would not stop online piracy. The powerful tools granted to the Attorney General would present major obstacles to casual users, but would be trivial for dedicated and technically savvy users to circumvent.

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/13/9422683-can-a-wikipedia-blackout-save-the-internet

============

Assumption that plays out in practice: Powers granted are ALWAYS powers (ab)used.

boutons_deux

12-14-2011, 02:54 PM

Rep. Issa: SOPA won't be approved unless fixed

"I would expect this bill is not going to become law in this Congress unless these problems are resolved," Issa, whose district includes portions of San Diego and Riverside counties, told CNET in a telephone interview.

The problems he's referring to are a long list of criticisms from opponents of SOPA, including Internet engineers, Web companies including Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Zynga, and civil liberties and human rights groups. Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe says SOPA "should not be enacted by Congress" because of censorship concerns, and Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has proposed an article page blackout.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57342716-281/rep-issa-sopa-wont-be-approved-unless-fixed/

boutons_deux

12-18-2011, 07:40 PM

George Washingston on SOPA: America’s Future: Russia and China Use Copyright Laws to Crush Government Criticism

By George Washington. Cross posted from Washington’s Blog.

Leading American Internet businessmen warn that the draconian copyright bill on the verge of being passed by Congress would let the US government use censorship techniques “similar to those used by China, Malaysia and Iran.”

If you want to know what the United States would look like after this bill is passed, just look at what’s been happening in Russia: The Russian government has been crushing dissent under the pretext of enforcing copyright law.

As the New York Times noted last year:

Across Russia, the security services have carried out dozens of similar raids against outspoken advocacy groups or opposition newspapers in recent years. Security officials say the inquiries reflect their concern about software piracy, which is rampant in Russia. Yet they rarely if ever carry out raids against advocacy groups or news organizations that back the government.

Since the American copyright bills (SOPA and PIPA) target online activities, the same thing happening to Russian critics’ computers could happen to the websites of any Americans who criticize the government, the too big to fail banks, or any of the other powers-that-be.

Indeed, the American copyright bill is modeled after the Chinese system. As I noted Monday:

Given that Joe Lieberman said that America needs an internet kill switch like China, that the U.S. economy has turned socialist (at least for friends of those with control of the money spigot), and that the U.S. government used communist Chinese torture techniques specifically designed to produce false confessions in order to sell the Iraq war, I guess that the bill’s Chinese-style censorship is not entirely surprising.

Of course, it might seem over-the-top to worry about copyright laws being used to stifle government criticism in America … if it weren’t for the fact that:

Some folks have alleged that copyright infringers are terrorists. See this, this, this and this

The U.S. government has been using anti-terrorism laws to crush dissent

In modern America, questioning war, protesting anything, asking questions about pollution or about Wall Street shenanigans, supporting Ron Paul, being a libertarian, holding gold, stocking up on more than 7 days of food, or liking the Founding Fathers may get you labeled as a suspected terrorist

We’ve gone from a nation of laws to a nation of men making laws in secret

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/george-washingston-on-sopa-america%E2%80%99s-future-russia-and-china-use-copyright-laws-to-crush-government-criticism.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capi talism%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

boutons_deux

12-24-2011, 08:18 AM

Corporate Endorsers Dropping Support of Stop Online Piracy Act

Some good news on the SOPA front: its corporate base of supporters is starting to crumble.

One of the few Internet-based organizations to support SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act (referred to by supporters as the Internet censorship bill), was GoDaddy.com, the domain name registration site that manages over 51 million domain names across the Web. When the coalition opposed to SOPA found out about this, they kicked off a grassroots campaign to pressure GoDaddy, mainly by telling people who have registered domain names with them to find another vendor. This had the intended effect. GoDaddy today renounced its support for SOPA.

Go Daddy is no longer supporting SOPA, the “Stop Online Piracy Act” currently working its way through U.S. Congress.

“Fighting online piracy is of the utmost importance, which is why Go Daddy has been working to help craft revisions to this legislation – but we can clearly do better,” Warren Adelman, Go Daddy’s newly appointed CEO, said. “It’s very important that all Internet stakeholders work together on this. Getting it right is worth the wait. Go Daddy will support it when and if the Internet community supports it.”

GoDaddy is not alone. Scores of law firms are requesting their names be removed from the Judiciary Committee’s official list of SOPA supporters. This follows on companies listed by the Chamber of Commerce as supporting SOPA asking to be taken off the list.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/12/23/corporate-endorsers-dropping-support-of-stop-online-piracy-act/

Wild Cobra

12-24-2011, 10:29 PM

It's also hard to judge a bill by it's title. Too many times, it does the opposite of what the mane implies.

velik_m

01-05-2012, 03:31 PM

US Threatened To Blacklist Spain For Not Implementing Site Blocking Law

In a leaked letter sent to Spain’s outgoing President, the US ambassador to the country warned that as punishment for not passing a SOPA-style file-sharing site blocking law, Spain risked being put on a United States trade blacklist . Inclusion would have left Spain open to a range of “retaliatory options” but already the US was working with the incoming government to reach its goals.

http://torrentfreak.com/us-threatened-to-blacklist-spain-for-not-implementing-site-blocking-law-120105/

:( Leader of "free" world my ass, more like bully of free world.

Wild Cobra

01-05-2012, 04:29 PM

:( Leader of "free" world my ass, more like bully of free world.
For enforcing copyright protections as mentioned in our highest law?

ElNono

01-05-2012, 04:48 PM

For enforcing copyright protections as mentioned in our highest law?

You didn't read anything he posted, did you?

Winehole23

01-07-2012, 02:30 PM

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mpaa-head-chris-dodd-online-censorship-bill-chinas-model_611984.html

Winehole23

01-07-2012, 02:32 PM

This year the movie industry made $30 billion (http://www.onlinemba.com/blog/film-industry-statistics/) (1/3 in the U.S. (http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/)) from box-office revenue. But the total movie industry revenue was $87 billion (http://dwmw.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/movies-and-money/). Where did the other $57 billion come from? From sources that the studios at one time claimed would put them out of business: Pay-per view TV, cable and satellite channels, video rentals, DVD sales, online subscriptions and digital downloads.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/sopa-is-a-symbol-of-the-movie-industrys-failure-to-innovate/250967/

ElNono

01-07-2012, 02:44 PM

We are facing a very new and a very troubling assault on our fiscal security, on our very economic life and we are facing it from a thing called the video cassette recorder and its necessary companion called the blank tape. And it is like a great tidal wave just off the shore. This video cassette recorder and the blank tape threaten profoundly the life-sustaining protection, I guess you would call it, on which copyright owners depend, on which film people depend, on which television people depend and it is called copyright.

- Jack Valenti (1982, Testimony to the US House of Representatives)

ElNono

01-07-2012, 02:46 PM

I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.

- Jack Valenti (1982, Testimony to the US House of Representatives)

Winehole23

01-07-2012, 03:03 PM

If one is to ever exist, the architects of that straight line to Internet freedom will be Hackerspace Global Grid (http://shackspace.de/wiki/doku.php?id=project:hgg), a cabal of hackers that have taken up the cause of creating a satellite-based communication network that would be capable of establishing an “uncensorable” Internet. It’s just one of the many goals of their ambitious project to pioneer a global grass-roots space program. Think of it as open-source outer space mission.http://www.webpronews.com/hackers-satellite-internet-sopa-2012-01

mouse

01-07-2012, 09:28 PM

one day your thoughts will be monitored.

Wild Cobra

01-07-2012, 11:01 PM

Am I wrong that the intent is to stop curtail infringement? If it goes beyond that, then I disagree.

If I missed something, please point it out. Link and quote please.

mouse

01-07-2012, 11:34 PM

Next time you lend your neighbor your lawnmower expect to be sued by Craftsman.

Blake

01-08-2012, 12:39 AM

Next time you lend your neighbor your lawnmower expect to be sued by Craftsman.

Nope.

Wild Cobra

01-08-2012, 01:00 AM

Next time you lend your neighbor your lawnmower expect to be sued by Craftsman.

Complete fail.

Now if you replicated that lawn mower and gave him the copy, where you could both be mowing your lawn at the same time, then a suit would be in order.

mouse

01-08-2012, 01:19 AM

Complete fail.

Nothing is Complete on a topic in a open public forum.

That is just your Lame way to avoid debating me on this subject.

mouse

01-08-2012, 01:23 AM

Nope.

I knew that would go over your head.

Blake

01-08-2012, 01:48 AM

I knew that would go over your head.

Lending someone a lawn mower is not an infringement of any kind.

WC is right in saying that analogy is a complete fail.

Blake

01-08-2012, 01:55 AM

Complete fail.

Now if you replicated that lawn mower and gave him the copy, where you could both be mowing your lawn at the same time, then a suit would be in order.

Lawn mowers are pretty basic in design, so there would have to be patented parts/designs that were copied.

Doubtful though that Sears would ever find out and then go after Joe Mower for building an exact copy of a Craftsman mulcher for his neighbor.

Winehole23

01-08-2012, 09:41 AM

The Church of Kopimism, whose principal tenent is the right to file-share, has been formally recognized as a religious organization in Sweden.

The Swedish government agency Kammarkollegiet registered the Church of Kopimism as a religious organization in late December, just before Christmas, the group said in a Wednesday statement. Members of the church applied three times in their more than year-long quest to have the religion formally recognized in Sweden.

Sweden is now the first and only country to recognize Kopimism as a religion, the group said.

"For the Church of Kopimism, information is holy and copying is a sacrament," it said in a statement. "Information holds a value, in itself and in what it contains, and the value multiplies through copying. Therefore, copying is central for the organization and its members."
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398391,00.asp

boutons_deux

01-09-2012, 08:31 PM

Lawmakers seem intent on approving SOPA, PIPA

Early this year, the U.S. Congress appears likely to move forward with two controversial copyright enforcement bills, even with vocal and widespread opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act in the Internet community.

The two bills, SOPA and PIPA for short, appear headed toward approval this year, unless opponents can change the minds of many lawmakers. Dozens of lawmakers have voiced support for the bills, despite reports from digital rights group Fight for the Future that more than 1 million people have sent email messages to Congress in opposition.

oth bills have strong support in Congress and among some segments of U.S. industry. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Motion Picture Association of America, two powerful trade and lobbying groups, are among the 400-plus organizations supporting the bills. Other supporters include the National Football League, Time Warner, L'Oreal, and the Fraternal Order of Police.

Several supporters of the two bills declined to make predictions, but it's hard to ignore the numbers in Congress so far.

PIPA has 41 co-sponsors in the 100-member Senate. The votes of just 19 more senators would be needed to override a filibuster from Wyden and his allies.

http://www.infoworld.com/d/the-industry-standard/lawmakers-seem-intent-approving-sopa-pipa-183328

mouse

01-10-2012, 11:43 PM

Complete fail.

My point exacly. This whole subject is complete fail.
You can't stop people from sharing music,ideas,lawn mowers,etc....

You close one door and two others open up. Shut down the WWW and two others will appear.

The Internet is like Radiation it's not going anywhere.

Blake

01-11-2012, 09:35 AM

My point exacly. This whole subject is complete fail.
You can't stop people from sharing music,ideas,lawn mowers,etc....

You close one door and two others open up. Shut down the WWW and two others will appear.

The Internet is like Radiation it's not going anywhere.

sharing a lawn mower is nothing like illegally downloading music

Agloco

01-11-2012, 10:14 AM

The Internet is like Radiation it's not going anywhere.

Actually, it's inversely related to radioactivity. Mull it over.

Winehole23

01-13-2012, 11:46 AM

http://www.vice.com/read/lamar-smith-sopa-copyright-whoops

Blake

01-13-2012, 12:38 PM

http://www.vice.com/read/lamar-smith-sopa-copyright-whoops

So did Lamar clean up his website or not?

Winehole23

01-13-2012, 03:09 PM

http://www.texansforlamarsmith.com/

Winehole23

01-13-2012, 03:09 PM

H/T,

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/01/texmessage-sopa-author-lamar-smith-caught-with-copyright-infringement/

Blake

01-13-2012, 03:12 PM

http://www.texansforlamarsmith.com/

I don't see the picture in question any more so I guess that's a yes?

If so, then the title of the previous article is a bit misleading.

Winehole23

01-13-2012, 03:18 PM

the bit comes from a blog, not the newspaper proper, but the reporter would do well from the standpoint of accuracy to change the headline. probably gets more clicks this way, though.

Blake

01-13-2012, 03:33 PM

Doesn't hurt that the blogger's name is jamie lee curtis

ElNono

01-13-2012, 05:00 PM

So did Lamar clean up his website or not?

Does it make any difference? If I download unauthorized MP3's and delete them an hour later it's still infringement...

Blake

01-13-2012, 05:55 PM

Does it make any difference? If I download unauthorized MP3's and delete them an hour later it's still infringement...

As stated earlier, it makes a difference for the title of the blog, imo.

Nothing more.

ElNono

01-14-2012, 03:20 AM

As stated earlier, it makes a difference for the title of the blog, imo.

Nothing more.

Why?

ElNono

01-14-2012, 03:21 AM

Although, I would say the title is misleading in a different way. It's very unlikely Lamar Smith wrote even a word that makes up the SOPA legislation...

Winehole23

01-14-2012, 03:23 AM

Lamar Smith is no dummy, but he plays one on TV.

Winehole23

01-14-2012, 03:24 AM

Doesn't hurt that the blogger's name is jamie lee curtisnot at all

Winehole23

01-14-2012, 03:29 AM

agree 100% with El Nono, btw

Winehole23

01-14-2012, 03:31 AM

none of these lawmakers write laws. they do get to gang fuck it later with party poohbahs and advisors, but that's a whole other movie.

Winehole23

01-14-2012, 02:38 PM

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petition-tool/response/combating-online-piracy-while-protecting-open-and-innovative-internet

ElNono

01-14-2012, 02:42 PM

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petition-tool/response/combating-online-piracy-while-protecting-open-and-innovative-internet

Did they just post this? They were the most fervent supporters of DNS crippling.

BTW, the latest news about SOPA is that it will be watered down:

DNS Provision Pulled From SOPA

"Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), one of the biggest backers of the Stop Online Piracy Act, today said he plans to remove the Domain Name System blocking provision (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57358947-261/dns-provision-pulled-from-sopa-victory-for-opponents/). 'After consultation with industry groups across the country,' Smith said in a statement released by his office, 'I feel we should remove (DNS) blocking from the Stop Online Piracy Act so that the [U.S. House Judiciary] Committee can further examine the issues surrounding this provision.'"

Winehole23

01-14-2012, 02:46 PM

Did they just post this? They were the most fervent supporters of DNS crippling.yep. people power occasionally works. who would have thunk?

Winehole23

01-14-2012, 02:47 PM

complete reversal of field

ElNono

01-14-2012, 02:56 PM

yep. people power occasionally works. who would have thunk?

I'm skeptic... I think it's likely Espinel figured she could get some vague enough wording in there where she could still do what she wants without specifically pointing out to it. But, we'll see.

Winehole23

01-14-2012, 02:59 PM

indeed

mouse

01-14-2012, 10:37 PM

sharing a lawn mower is nothing like illegally downloading music

Why?

Does it cost ACDC any money if I make a copy of Hells Bells?

mouse

01-14-2012, 10:39 PM

Actually, it's inversely related to radioactivity. Mull it over.

Your really taking this Professor ST seriously. If you want to have a live debate let me know.

Wild Cobra

01-14-2012, 10:43 PM

Your really taking this Professor ST seriously. If you want to have a live debate let me know.
LOL...

A game of cat and mouse?

Mouse... You'll lose big!

mouse

01-14-2012, 11:07 PM

Is that a no?

http://files.turbosquid.com/Preview/2010/12/03__03_44_00/HookLineSinker2.jpg56c735f3-cc2e-4287-835f-d92bb0a88a06Larger.jpg

velik_m

01-15-2012, 01:04 AM

How Copyright Industries Con Congress
...
Of the total $6.1 billion in annual losses LEK estimated to MPAA studios, the amount attributable to online piracy by users in the United States was $446 million—which, by coincidence, is roughly the amount grossed globally by Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel.
...

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/how-copyright-industries-con-congress/

Wild Cobra

01-15-2012, 01:21 AM

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/how-copyright-industries-con-congress/
The amount doesn't matter. Copyrights are a matter actually covered in the constitution, and congress should make every reasonable effort to protect intellectual property rights.

velik_m

01-15-2012, 05:19 AM

The amount doesn't matter. Copyrights are a matter actually covered in the constitution, and congress should make every reasonable effort to protect intellectual property rights.

That right there tells you the amount matters...

Wild Cobra

01-15-2012, 05:32 AM

That right there tells you the amount matters...
If you say so. My point is the words don't give value a significance:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

FuzzyLumpkins

01-15-2012, 05:57 AM

I have a simple solution: have much stricter and less protective IPR laws as pertains to corporations versus individual owners. Someone deserves stringent copyright protection; whereas, something does not.

velik_m

01-15-2012, 07:42 AM

Boing Boing will go dark on Jan 18 to fight SOPA
...
Even though a substantial portion of my living comes from the entertainment industry, I don't think that any amount of "piracy" justifies this kind of depraved indifference to the consequences of one's actions. Big Content haven't just declared war on Boing Boing and Reddit and the rest of the "fun" Internet: they've declared war on every person who uses the net to publicize police brutality, every oppressed person in the Arab Spring who used the net to organize protests and publicize the blood spilled by their oppressors, every abused kid who used the net to reveal her father as a brutalizer of children, every gay kid who used the net to discover that life is worth living despite the torment she's experiencing, every grassroots political campaigner who uses the net to make her community a better place -- as well as the scientists who collaborate online, the rescue workers who coordinate online, the makers who trade tips online, the people with rare diseases who support each other online, and the independent creators who use the Internet to earn their livings.
...

http://boingboing.net/2012/01/14/boing-boing-will-go-dark-on-ja.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

boutons_deux

01-15-2012, 11:57 AM

Victory for Internet Freedom: Obama Announces Opposition to SOPA, Congress Shelves Bill

At issue are two related bills: the Senate’s Protect IP Act and the even more offensive Stop Online Piracy Act in the House, both of which are generated intense opposition from tech giants and First Amendment advocates. The first sign that the bills’ prospects were dwindling came Friday, when SOPA sponsors agreed to drop a key provision that would have required service providers to block access to international sites accused of piracy.

The legislation ran into an even more significant problem yesterday when the White House announced its opposition to the bills. Though the administration’s chief technology officials officials acknowledged the problem of online privacy, the White House statement presented a fairly detailed critique of the measures and concluded, “We will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.” It added that any proposed legislation “must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet.”

House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said early Saturday morning that Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) promised him the House will not vote on the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) unless there is consensus on the bill.

“While I remain concerned about Senate action on the Protect IP Act, I am confident that flawed legislation will not be taken up by this House,” Issa said in a statement. “Majority Leader Cantor has assured me that we will continue to work to address outstanding concerns and work to build consensus prior to any anti-piracy legislation coming before the House for a vote.”

http://www.alternet.org/story/153776/victory_for_internet_freedom%3A_obama_announces_op position_to_sopa%2C_congress_shelves_bill?akid=813 2.187590.coOzyM&rd=1&t=21

boutons_deux

01-15-2012, 11:57 AM

.........

Winehole23

01-15-2012, 12:42 PM

do you like day-olds, boutons?

Spurminator

01-15-2012, 01:00 PM

Laws like this are last gasp efforts by the RIAA and MPAA to stave off irrelevance. Their model is growing less necessary in the internet age, where art can be freely and easily distributed without the need of a studio printing it, marketing it, distributing it, and collecting most of the reward.

This is especially true in the case of music... now your average joe can record a great sounding album all by himself and distribute it however he wants. The archaic process of signing with a record company and having them negotiate with radio conglomerates to play their songs is dying, as it should be.

I am rarely gleeful about people losing their jobs but in this case I am not sad about it either. These days record companies and radio conglomerates stand in the way of more good music than they actually bring to the masses. They limit access and mandate what you hear on the airwaves, not based on quality but based on contracts. It's a process that is inherently anti-art.

It should not be the law's responsibility to protect the RIAA and MPAA from irrelevance. If they are going to survive, it is up to them to:

1. come up with distribution technologies that better prevent mass piracy
2. price their product such that a consumer feels it is worth paying for, and/or
3. better incentivize purchase.

Job creation is something worth working for, but we shouldn't be protecting jobs that have no place anymore. Record and film executives who are unable to keep up with shifts in audience habits will just have to find something else to exploit for money.

boutons_deux

01-15-2012, 01:18 PM

Notice how much bipartisan Congressional energy goes into protecting UCA profits, vs how much Congressional energy goes into the economic stimulus, housing crisis, jobs creation.

Only suckers and shills and ignorant assholes could still believe/promote that Congress is working for the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number

Winehole23

01-15-2012, 05:14 PM

https://twitter.com/#!/rupertmurdoch/status/158317988284596224

FuzzyLumpkins

01-15-2012, 05:48 PM

https://twitter.com/#!/rupertmurdoch/status/158317988284596224

I hope the Brits hammer him and Newscorps some more with shutdowns or banning him.

Spur_Fanatic

01-15-2012, 06:00 PM

LOL at Murdoch.

What a fucker. How he is not in jail after tapping the phones of that family in Britain, I dunno.

boutons_deux

01-15-2012, 06:27 PM

upper mgmt is never responsible and certainly not prosecuted or jailed, like Corzine at MF, $100Ms missing and he's say he doesn't know a thing.

velik_m

01-16-2012, 03:58 PM

Wikipedia will shut down for 24 hours on Wednesday to protest against SOPA

Today, founder of the non-profit behind information archive Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, announced that the site will go dark for 24 hours on Wednesday in protest of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).
...

http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/01/16/wikipedia-will-shut-down-for-24-hours-on-wednesday-to-protest-against-sopa/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheNextWeb+%28The+Next+Web+Al l+Stories%29

mouse

01-16-2012, 06:21 PM

wait till one of these law makers wants to sell something on Craigslist and its not there anymore.

mouse

01-16-2012, 06:27 PM

congress should make every reasonable effort to protect intellectual property rights.

:lmao

7 blocks from the white house.

http://www.amoeba.com/dynamic-images/blog/Amoebite/pccfleamarket.jpg

ChuckD

01-16-2012, 08:36 PM

Wild Cobra

01-17-2012, 03:01 AM

:lmao

7 blocks from the white house.

http://www.amoeba.com/dynamic-images/blog/Amoebite/pccfleamarket.jpg
I see a picture of an outdoor marketplace. Are you suggesting those are illegal copies? If so, what evidence do you have?

Winehole23

01-17-2012, 04:34 AM

la pulga. all purchases are "as is". warrantability is nil.

Winehole23

01-17-2012, 04:36 AM

leaving wholly to one side the authenticity of the vendible goods.

Winehole23

01-17-2012, 04:42 AM

commerce discovers the judgment of consumers as well as any lack of it

Winehole23

01-17-2012, 04:49 AM

(ideally, of course. in the bummer universe, results are often sub-optimal.)

velik_m

01-17-2012, 10:30 AM

Copyright King: Why the "I Have a Dream" Speech Still Isn't Free

Martin Luther King Jr.‘s “I Have a Dream” speech is considered one of the most recognizable collection of words in American history. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of a national treasure or a national park. The National Park Service inscribed it on the Lincoln Memorial and the Library of Congress put it into its National Recording Registry. So we might hold it to be self evident that it can be spread freely.

Not exactly. Any unauthorized usage of the speech and a number of other speeches by King – including in PBS documentaries – is a violation of American law. You’d be hard pressed to find a good complete video version on the web, and it’s not even to be found in the new digital archive of the King Center’s website. If you want to watch the whole thing, legally, you’ll need to get the $20 DVD.

http://motherboard.vice.com/2012/1/16/copyright-king-why-the-i-have-a-dream-speech-still-isn-t-free

Blake

01-17-2012, 02:20 PM

Why?

Does it cost ACDC any money if I make a copy of Hells Bells?

Is ACDC cool with you giving a copy to your neighbor for free?

Doubtful, imo.

Blake

01-17-2012, 02:26 PM

la pulga. all purchases are "as is". warrantability is nil.

Last time I was at one about three years ago, plenty of $5 first run movie bootlegs to go around.

Probably not so much any more.

Blake

01-17-2012, 02:38 PM

It should not be the law's responsibility to protect the RIAA and MPAA from irrelevance. If they are going to survive, it is up to them to:

1. come up with distribution technologies that better prevent mass piracy
2. price their product such that a consumer feels it is worth paying for, and/or
3. better incentivize purchase.

So you are saying piracy should be legal.

K.

Spurminator

01-17-2012, 03:22 PM

So you are saying piracy should be legal.

K.

I don't think it's something that warrants legal involvement unless someone is turning around and selling the bootleg copies.

Spurminator

01-17-2012, 03:24 PM

Is ACDC cool with you giving a copy to your neighbor for free?

Doubtful, imo.

Are you serious? They wouldn't give two shits about it.

Wild Cobra

01-17-2012, 03:25 PM

I don't think it's something that warrants legal involvement unless someone is turning around and selling the bootleg copies.
I see. Not too far off of an example from my understanding:

So if I go to a store, and shoplift a CD and sell it to you, it warrants legal action.

If you shoplift the CD yourself, that's OK?

Just because data isn't necessarily in a physical form, doesn't make the crime any different.

Spurminator

01-17-2012, 03:33 PM

Just because data isn't necessarily in a physical form, doesn't make the crime any different.

It makes it completely different. If you steal a CD from Best Buy, you are stealing from Best Buy, who ordered the CD from a distributor with the intent to sell. That CD would have likely been sold to someone else if you had not stolen it. Instead, Best Buy has lost money from a potential sale.

A music label doesn't lose $10 every time one of their CDs is pirated, or borrowed from a neighbor, or played with stunning accuracy by a live band and put on YouTube.

Wild Cobra

01-17-2012, 03:41 PM

It makes it completely different. If you steal a CD from Best Buy, you are stealing from Best Buy, who ordered the CD from a distributor with the intent to sell. That CD would have likely been sold to someone else if you had not stolen it. Instead, Best Buy has lost money from a potential sale.

A music label doesn't lose $10 every time one of their CDs is pirated, or borrowed from a neighbor, or played with stunning accuracy by a live band and put on YouTube.
Yet is is a lost sale. How many people buy a legal copy after having a bootleg?

Spurminator

01-17-2012, 03:43 PM

Yet is is a lost sale that will now not occur.

1. You don't that the person who downloaded the CD would have purchased it if the technology did not exist to download it.

2. People download albums and buy them later all the time.

Wild Cobra

01-17-2012, 03:47 PM

1. You don't that the person who downloaded the CD would have purchased it if the technology did not exist to download it.

2. People download albums and buy them later all the time.
If you say so. I guess you are an expert of such criminal activities, so I will admit to being ignorant, not having such first hand information.

I'm curious. How many of the CD's, DVD's, etc. do you buy after downloading them first?

Blake

01-17-2012, 03:48 PM

Are you serious? They wouldn't give two shits about it.

I bet they would if one person bought it and then made 10 million copies to give away to 10 million friends.

Blake

01-17-2012, 03:50 PM

1. You don't that the person who downloaded the CD would have purchased it if the technology did not exist to download it.

2. People download albums and buy them later all the time.

1. Irrelevant

2. Irrelevant

Spurminator

01-17-2012, 03:59 PM

If you say so. I guess you are an expert of such criminal activities, so I will admit to being ignorant, not having such first hand information.

I'm not an expert, I just have a more justifiable opinion on the matter than you do.

I'm curious. How many of the CD's, DVD's, etc. do you buy after downloading them first?

I have downloaded more music than any person would conceivably buy in his lifetime. I probably haven't even listened to half of it. But it's there if the urge strikes me.

Most of the CDs I've bought in the last 8 years were downloaded first. In most cases, I want to hear it before committing to purchase. The only exceptions are for my favorite bands when I still like the experience of opening the album and listening to it for the first time off the disc in my car.

I have over 700 CDs in my collection and I subscribe to Spotify. So I'm pretty morally comfortable with my music torrenting habits.

I rarely download movies that are in the theater or available to rent.

Not that any of that matters, but you asked.

Blake

01-17-2012, 03:59 PM

Spurminator

01-17-2012, 03:59 PM

1. Irrelevant

2. Irrelevant

Says you.

Spurminator

01-17-2012, 04:01 PM

Rofl trying to justify piracy

This is ROFL funny? You need to get out more, buddy.

Blake

01-17-2012, 04:04 PM

I have downloaded more music than any person would conceivably buy in his lifetime. I probably haven't even listened to half of it. But it's there if the urge strikes me.

Not that any of that matters, but you asked.

Do you usually pay for the music downloads?

Blake

01-17-2012, 04:10 PM

Says you.

Irrelevant might not be the right word.

It's just not a good argument for justifying giving out free copies of music/movies to neighbors.

Says me, in agreement with opinions I've read around the internets.

Spurminator

01-17-2012, 04:21 PM

Irrelevant might not be the right word.

It's just not a good argument for justifying giving out free copies of music/movies to neighbors.

People have been sharing with neighbors since the beginning of time. It's only become a legal issue now that sharing is being done on a mass scale.

I'm not saying the entertainment industry shouldn't care. I'm saying it's on them to evolve their business. It's not on Congress to get involved with protecting a business model that has not grown with the times. Their product is no longer worth what they expect people to pay for it.

Spurminator

01-17-2012, 04:25 PM

And with that said, as evidenced by the success of iTunes, people ARE willing to pay for music if you adjust access and prices to meet consumer demand.

Winehole23

01-17-2012, 04:39 PM

lol Blake using an alleged online consensus as a crutch

Blake

01-17-2012, 05:13 PM

lol Blake using an alleged online consensus as a crutch

Yes, someone out there agrees with me and has taken the time and effort to explain why that argument is shit.

Why wouldn't I borrow said crutch if I agree with the content? I like to work smart.

Rofl.

Winehole23

01-17-2012, 05:31 PM

you don't you post it here, so we can receive the benefit too?

Blake

01-17-2012, 05:44 PM

you don't you post it here, so we can receive the benefit too?

I didn't see the request for such a source in the middle of your lol.

Give me a few hours to get to my laptop and I'll post it.

Winehole23

01-17-2012, 05:57 PM

thx

Winehole23

01-18-2012, 03:26 AM

The broad definitions in the bill create tremendous uncertainty for nearly every site online. This sounds like hyperbole, but it is not. Defenders of the bill like to claim that it is "narrowly focused" on foreign rogue infringing sites. Nothing could be further from the truth. While PIPA targets only foreign sites, the mechanism by which it does so is to put tremendous compliance and liability on third party service providers in the US. SOPA goes even further in expanding the private right of action to domestic sites as well. We've already seen how such laws can be abused by looking at how frequently false takedown claims are made under the existing DMCA. Of course, under the DMCA, just the content is blocked. Under SOPA all money to a site can be cut off. Under PIPA sites will just end up in court. Or, with both laws, an Attorney General can take action leading US companies to have to effectively act as network nannies trying to keep infringement from being accessible. None of this is good for anyone building a startup company these days. The massive uncertainty around this, combined with the need for a huge legal department sitting in "the garage" as a startup begins, will certainly slow down the pace of innovation in the US, while likely driving it elsewhere.

And the definitions are ridiculously broad. Under SOPA, you can be found "dedicated to the theft of US property" if the core functionality of your site "enables or facilitates" infringement. The core functionality of nearly every internet website that involves user generated content enables and facilitates infringement. The entire internet itself enables or facilitates infringement. Email enables or facilitates infringement. They have significant non-infringing uses as well, but the definition leaves that out entirely. Under SOPA, there's also a risk if you take "deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" of infringement on a site. Of course, it's not at all clear how one takes deliberate actions to avoid taking action. The only way to read this clause from a tech company perspective is that it requires proactive monitoring, which is effectively impossible for a user generated content site. PROTECT IP's definitions are equally broad, again using the "enabling" or "facilitating" language.

The risk of these broad definitions on perfectly legitimate companies is not theoretical: Defenders of both bills continue to insist that they're only meant to deal with the worst of the worst. If that were really true, the definitions would be a lot tighter and a lot more specific. Even if this is the intention of the authors of both bills, the simple fact is that the very broad definitions in the bill, mean that any entrepreneur today will need to take significant compliance costs just to avoid the possible appearance of fitting the criteria.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111122/04254316872/definitive-post-why-sopa-protect-ip-are-bad-bad-ideas.shtml

Winehole23

01-18-2012, 03:30 AM

Spurminator made points similar to the techdirt article about an underserved market and business models that don't change with the times

MannyIsGod

01-18-2012, 10:13 AM

The sites today being "blacked out" will hopeully go a long way to ending this bullshit.

Blake

01-18-2012, 12:40 PM

you don't you post it here, so we can receive the benefit too?

http://blog.chron.com/brokenrecord/2010/12/top-five-reasons-you-download-music-and-why-you-are-wrong/

http://internet-entrepreneurship.com/did-the-internet-kill-the-artist-part-three/

http://www.udel.edu/legaltunes/

"..At the University of Delaware, there are no excuses for illegally downloading...."

Blake

01-18-2012, 12:42 PM

And with that said, as evidenced by the success of iTunes, people ARE willing to pay for music if you adjust access and prices to meet consumer demand.

great.

How is stealing music justified if they don't adjust?

Winehole23

01-18-2012, 12:44 PM

enforceable rights of artists should and will be enforced to whatever extent possible, but maybe their business plans need to start changing too

boutons_deux

01-18-2012, 01:24 PM

a forerunner of SOPA's arbitrary power to shutdown anybody was the financial shutting down payments to wikileaks.

so the financial sector could also shutdown donations to left/right-wing sites, and SOPA could take their domains out of DNS and registrars.

Only a fool would think such incredible power wouldn't be abused.

ElNono

01-18-2012, 03:22 PM

http://blog.chron.com/brokenrecord/2010/12/top-five-reasons-you-download-music-and-why-you-are-wrong/

http://internet-entrepreneurship.com/did-the-internet-kill-the-artist-part-three/

http://www.udel.edu/legaltunes/

"..At the University of Delaware, there are no excuses for illegally downloading...."

So how all those 3 links address this?

1. You don't that the person who downloaded the CD would have purchased it if the technology did not exist to download it.

2. People download albums and buy them later all the time.

Blake

01-18-2012, 03:35 PM

So how all those 3 links address this?

Mehhhhhh.....can't find what I was looking for. I may dig back through this thread.

Either way, please explain why you feel that those two things are justification for piracy.

ElNono

01-18-2012, 03:41 PM

Either way, please explain why you feel that those two things are justification for piracy.

Those two points were not brought up to justify piracy. Why would I need to justify that?

Blake

01-18-2012, 03:46 PM

Those two points were not brought up to justify piracy. Why would I need to justify that?

The points by Spurminator? Yes, they were.

ElNono

01-18-2012, 04:08 PM

The points by Spurminator? Yes, they were.

Nope.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5582570&postcount=392

When you find that link that proves that a pirate copy automatically equates a lost sale, please post it. Thanks.

Winehole23

01-18-2012, 04:16 PM

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120118/11581717456/more-senators-dropping-off-as-co-sponsors-pipa.shtml

Blake

01-18-2012, 04:22 PM

Nope.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5582570&postcount=392

I the context off the conversation, yup.

When you find that link that proves that a pirate copy automatically equates a lost sale, please post it. Thanks.

Let me know when someone that downloads a song for free goes back and buys it later.

K, thanks.

ElNono

01-18-2012, 04:30 PM

Let me know when someone that downloads a song for free goes back and buys it later.

I've done it. Not only with songs. I don't know what's weird about that. People used to do that all the time with tapes too.

Spurminator

01-18-2012, 04:43 PM

great.

How is stealing music justified if they don't adjust?

I fundamentally disagree with calling it stealing.

Spurminator

01-18-2012, 04:44 PM

Let me know when someone that downloads a song for free goes back and buys it later.

K, thanks.

I'm beginning to wonder if you actually know any people.

Wild Cobra

01-18-2012, 05:00 PM

The sites today being "blacked out" will hopeully go a long way to ending this bullshit.
I guess if you listen to people with their panties in a bunch.

Blake

01-18-2012, 05:00 PM

I've done it.

If there's nothing wrong with you downloading it for free, why did you buy it later?

Blake

01-18-2012, 05:03 PM

I fundamentally disagree with calling it stealing.

Fundamentally speaking, if you are taking something that you don't have the right to take, then you are stealing.

Blake

01-18-2012, 05:06 PM

I'm beginning to wonder if you actually know any people.

Your powers of deduction are fundamentally unsound.

ElNono

01-18-2012, 05:13 PM

If there's nothing wrong with you downloading it for free, why did you buy it later?

Many reasons. For example:
Because I liked a song and decided to purchase the whole album.
Because I felt like the author(s) did a good job and wanted to reward them.
Because I had an overall interest in supporting the company that made the product.

I've done stuff like that even with complimentary items. Definitely not as rare as you think it is.

Spurminator

01-18-2012, 05:14 PM

Fundamentally speaking, if you are taking something that you don't have the right to take, then you are stealing.

I'm not taking anything. I'm copying something for my own personal use.

Blake

01-18-2012, 05:32 PM

Many reasons. For example:
Because I liked a song and decided to purchase the whole album.

If you can find all the songs, why wouldn't you just download the entire album for free?

Because I felt like the author(s) did a good job and wanted to reward them.
Because I had an overall interest in supporting the company that made the product.

I've done stuff like that even with complimentary items.

Have you ever paid later for a downloaded song you didn't like?

Definitely not as rare as you think it is.

I didn't imply it was rare.

I wanted to ask why questions to the person that paid later.

Luckily that person was you.

Blake

01-18-2012, 05:33 PM

I'm not taking anything. I'm copying something for my own personal use.

That you didn't pay for.

You're stealing.

Spurminator

01-18-2012, 05:36 PM

That you didn't pay for.

You're stealing.

At whose expense?

Your argument basically boils down to "it's wrong because it's wrong." That's the kind of intellectual laziness that gets SOPA/PIPA type legislation passed.

Spurminator

01-18-2012, 05:38 PM

I didn't imply it was rare.

lol yes you did. You said "Let me know when someone that downloads a song for free goes back and buys it later."

Actually, I take it back, that statement doesn't imply it is rare. It implies that it NEVER HAPPENS.

mouse

01-18-2012, 05:41 PM

Rofl trying to justify piracy

It must be nice to live an all sin free life. I'm sure you never share.
http://wackyiraqi.com/wtf/high_horse.jpg

CuckingFunt

01-18-2012, 05:43 PM

Let me know when someone that downloads a song for free goes back and buys it later.

K, thanks.

I've done it.

I've done it with movies and television shows, too.

There have of course been plenty of times I've downloaded something for free and NOT gone back to buy it later, but trying to get around paying for something isn't typically my motivation in the first place. In addition to general impatience, the vast majority of the things I've downloaded have been because it/they were not available yet, not available in my area, or not available in the format I wanted them.

Blake

01-18-2012, 05:45 PM

At whose expense?

It costs money to produce music.

I'm starting to wonder if you realize that it's called a music business.....not a music charity.

If someone is wanting $1 for their song and you download it somewhere else for free, you are stealing it. There is no fundamental way around that.

ElNono

01-18-2012, 05:48 PM

If you can find all the songs, why wouldn't you just download the entire album for free?

Already answered in my previous post.

Have you ever paid later for a downloaded song you didn't like?

Sure. Even more so back then when you couldn't purchase individual songs.

I didn't imply it was rare.

Let me know when someone that downloads a song for free goes back and buys it later.

K, thanks.

Blake

01-18-2012, 05:48 PM

I've done it.

I've done it with movies and television shows, too.

There have of course been plenty of times I've downloaded something for free and NOT gone back to buy it later, but trying to get around paying for something isn't typically my motivation in the first place. In addition to general impatience, the vast majority of the things I've downloaded have been because it/they were not available yet, not available in my area, or not available in the format I wanted them.

Yeah, those apparently are pretty common excuses/rationalizations for illegal downloads.

ElNono

01-18-2012, 05:56 PM

BTW, I have no problem with policing copyright infringement.

I simply disagree with the equation of every copy being equal to a lost sale.

Spurminator

01-18-2012, 05:57 PM

It costs money to produce music.

I'm starting to wonder if you realize that it's called a music business.....not a music charity.

If someone is wanting $1 for their song and you download it somewhere else for free, you are stealing it. There is no fundamental way around that.

And they get their money if they produce something I like. I reject the idea that I should have to pay for something in order to hear it, without knowing if I'm even going to like it or ever have any interest in listening to it again.

Most artists think that way too. You mistakenly think you're speaking on behalf of a bunch of upstart musicians. In reality, you're just parroting the tired arguments of label executives, their parent companies and their shareholders.

Music itself has never been in better shape than it is right now. I couldn't give a fuck about the people who make money limiting access to art.

ElNono

01-18-2012, 05:58 PM

Then there's also the levels of force that go into such enforcement... and that's where this thread originally started at.

Spurminator

01-18-2012, 06:02 PM

Then there's also the levels of force that go into such enforcement... and that's where this thread originally started at.

I agree. Despite the tangent, it really doesn't matter how you feel about piracy... This legislation far exceeds its stated purpose.

velik_m

01-19-2012, 01:10 AM

Supreme Court Says Congress May Re-Copyright Public Domain Works

Congress may take books, musical compositions and other works out of the public domain, where they can be freely used and adapted, and grant them copyright status again, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

In a 6-2 ruling, the court said that, just because material enters the public domain, it is not “territory that works may never exit.” (.pdf)

The top court was ruling on a petition by a group of orchestra conductors, educators, performers, publishers and film archivists who urged the justices to reverse an appellate court that ruled against the group, which has relied on artistic works in the public domain for their livelihoods.

...
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/scotus-re-copyright-decision/

ElNono

01-19-2012, 01:38 AM

^ I read that earlier. I think the SCOTUS isn't necessarily wrong, but Congress really fucked up. What else is new?

Winehole23

01-19-2012, 04:22 AM

(beer)

velik_m

01-19-2012, 05:26 AM

^ I read that earlier. I think the SCOTUS isn't necessarily wrong, but Congress really fucked up. What else is new?

Fucked-up implies that they got the result they didn't want...

Blake

01-19-2012, 09:30 AM

lol yes you did. You said "Let me know when someone that downloads a song for free goes back and buys it later."

Actually, I take it back, that statement doesn't imply it is rare. It implies that it NEVER HAPPENS.

lol nope.

Blake

01-19-2012, 09:37 AM

It must be nice to live an all sin free life. I'm sure you never share.

didn't imply that I live an all sin free life either.

didn't even imply that I've never illegally downloaded something.

I think it's hilarious the lengths people are going to to try to justify stealing.

Blake

01-19-2012, 09:42 AM

Sure. Even more so back then when you couldn't purchase individual songs.

You are like the supermarket person that samples a grape in the produce section, whether the store is handing out free samples or not.

You are stealing the grape, whether you like the grape or not.

...and just because something is not available for you to purchase, that does not mean you have the right to take it.

That's one of the more ridiculous attempts at justification that an illegal downloader like yourself tries to make.

Blake

01-19-2012, 09:52 AM

And they get their money if they produce something I like.

lol but not if you don't like it.

who are you that you think you can dictate such terms?

I reject the idea that I should have to pay for something in order to hear it, without knowing if I'm even going to like it or ever have any interest in listening to it again.

Of course you reject the idea.

Most pirates do.

Most artists think that way too. You mistakenly think you're speaking on behalf of a bunch of upstart musicians. In reality, you're just parroting the tired arguments of label executives, their parent companies and their shareholders.

Music itself has never been in better shape than it is right now. I couldn't give a fuck about the people who make money limiting access to art.

Rofl at you doing the thinking for musicians but telling me I'm mistaken for speaking on their behalf. If someone wants you to have something for free, they wouldn't charge $1 for it. It's pretty simple.

I know you don't give a fuck about stealing people's music. You made that clear in your first post.

Blake

01-19-2012, 09:56 AM

I agree. Despite the tangent, it really doesn't matter how you feel about piracy... This legislation far exceeds its stated purpose.

I agree that these bills sucked ass.

That really doesn't excuse your piracy, pirate.

ElNono

01-19-2012, 02:10 PM

You are like the supermarket person that samples a grape in the produce section, whether the store is handing out free samples or not.

You are stealing the grape, whether you like the grape or not.

...and just because something is not available for you to purchase, that does not mean you have the right to take it.

That's one of the more ridiculous attempts at justification that an illegal downloader like yourself tries to make.

You're off-topic again.

Did the sampling cause a lost sale? Isn't the fact that I'm sampling (sanctioned by the rights holder or not) evidence that I'm not convinced if I want to purchase or not?

I have no problem with the rights holder enforcing their rights. I made that clear a long time ago.

ElNono

01-19-2012, 02:15 PM

lol but not if you don't like it.

who are you that you think you can dictate such terms?

There's two parts to any sale. The seller and the buyer. He's 50% of the transaction. Why wouldn't he be able to dictate such terms?

Spurminator

01-19-2012, 02:42 PM

lol but not if you don't like it.

who are you that you think you can dictate such terms?

Someone with a computer and the ability to sample art/music before determining if I want to pay for it.

The recording industry is beginning to see that this is where their business is heading too. That's why they're now streaming new albums prior to release on NPR and other sites, and also signing on with music streaming companies like Spotify.

Rofl at you doing the thinking for musicians but telling me I'm mistaken for speaking on their behalf. If someone wants you to have something for free, they wouldn't charge $1 for it. It's pretty simple.

I know you don't give a fuck about stealing people's music. You made that clear in your first post.

You're not speaking on behalf of musicians. I doubt you know ANY musicians. Most musicians first and foremost want you to hear their music. They would like you to pay for it if you like it. If you knew anyone who makes any kind of art for a living, you'd know that.

You're speaking on behalf of a dying industry that, through proposed regulations like SOPA/PIPA, is seeking to make it more difficult for most musicians' music to be heard.

Thanks to sites and services like Napster, Kazaa, torrenting, etc., people are hearing more varieties of music by more artists than ever before. And they're still paying for music, whether it's live or recorded. This is a good thing.

lol nope.

Of course you reject the idea.

Most pirates do.

That really doesn't excuse your piracy, pirate.

Ooh, sick burns bro! You have yet to present any argument that goes beyond "It's wrong cuz it's wrong, you pirate, lol" and you seem proud of your inability to keep up with an adult conversation.

...Also, lol yep.

Blake

01-19-2012, 03:46 PM

You're off-topic again.

It's a sidebar analogy of what I compare downloaders like you to.

Did the sampling cause a lost sale? Isn't the fact that I'm sampling (sanctioned by the rights holder or not) evidence that I'm not convinced if I want to purchase or not?

I have no problem with the rights holder enforcing their rights. I made that clear a long time ago.

it's irrelevant to the fact you took the sample without permission.

Blake

01-19-2012, 03:54 PM

There's two parts to any sale. The seller and the buyer. He's 50% of the transaction. Why wouldn't he be able to dictate such terms?

Wow. That's just flat out stupid.

If the buyer doesn't like the price the seller puts it at, the buyer can go fuck himself.......or just take it without permission.

ElNono

01-19-2012, 03:55 PM

It's a sidebar analogy of what I compare downloaders like you to.

It's a poor analogy to what we're discussing. Wrong too.

it's irrelevant to the fact you took the sample without permission.

Was a sale lost? It's entirely relevant to what we're discussing. Actually, it's exactly what I'm discussing with you.

ElNono

01-19-2012, 03:57 PM

Wow. That's just flat out stupid.

If the buyer doesn't like the price the seller puts it at, the buyer can go fuck himself.......or just take it without permission.

Exactly, people that don't like things don't buy them.

What's "flat out stupid" about that?

Blake

01-19-2012, 04:02 PM

It's a poor analogy to what we're discussing. Wrong too.

I think it's analogy that is pretty close to dead center.

Next time you buy grapes, ask the cashier if they can charge you for one grape.

If the scales are the same from when I worked at heb, the answer is no because the grape is too light and doesn't register any weight.

Was a sale lost? It's entirely relevant to what we're discussing. Actually, it's exactly what we're discussing.

Bullshit.

Did you take something without permission? Yes or no

Blake

01-19-2012, 04:06 PM

Exactly, people that don't like things don't buy them.

What's "flat out stupid" about that?

You're sidestepping what you said.

What's stupid about your statement was saying the customer has any ability to dictate terms of a sale.

Flat. Out. Stupid.

ElNono

01-19-2012, 04:11 PM

I think it's analogy that is pretty close to dead center.

Next time you buy grapes, ask the cashier if they can charge you for one grape.

If the scales are the same from when I worked at heb, the answer is no because the grape is too light and doesn't register any weight.

It's the wrong analogy because we're discussing if a pirate copy equates to a lost sale.

Starting from the fact I can't copy a grape at the supermarket, the analogy is simply wrong. Then it doesn't address the lost sale argument at all.

Bullshit.

Did you take something without permission? Yes or no

Was a sale lost?

ElNono

01-19-2012, 04:14 PM

You're sidestepping what you said.

What's stupid about your statement was saying the customer has any ability to dictate terms of a sale.

I'm not sidestepping anything. You said the customer doesn't have the ability to dictate any terms on the sale if he doesn't like the product.

That's factually wrong. The customer can dictate not to go ahead with the purchase.

lol but not if you don't like it.

who are you that you think you can dictate such terms?

Flat. Out. Stupid.

Blake

01-19-2012, 04:15 PM

Someone with a computer and the ability to sample art/music before determining if I want to pay for it.

Which is exactly how pirates justify their piracy.

You're not speaking on behalf of musicians. I doubt you know ANY musicians. Most musicians first and foremost want you to hear their music. They would like you to pay for it if you like it. If you knew anyone who makes any kind of art for a living, you'd know that.

I linked a Houston Chronicle blog written by a musician, moron.

Who are you that you can speak on behalf of musicians?

Ooh, sick burns bro! You have yet to present any argument that goes beyond "It's wrong cuz it's wrong, you pirate, lol" and you seem proud of your inability to keep up with an adult conversation.

...Also, lol yep.

Everyone knows stealing its wrong.

It's fucking hilarious that you have no problems calling it piracy, but cry when someone calls it stealing.

Keep up the good fight, Long John.

Blake

01-19-2012, 04:18 PM

I'm not sidestepping anything. You said the customer doesn't have the ability to dictate any terms on the sale if he doesn't like the product.

That's factually wrong. The customer can dictate not to go ahead with the purchase.

Can the customer dictate the price of the item?

ElNono

01-19-2012, 04:24 PM

Can the customer dictate the price of the item?

On some sales they can. Bargaining existed long before the internet.

Useruser666

01-19-2012, 04:37 PM

I don't believe copying files to be theft, especially not if it's not for financial gain. I am also an IP producer, but the IP I produce has no value in being copied as it is customer specific. Stealing a grape is taking a physical thing, copying an MP3 does not change ownership of a file sitting on an Apple ITunes server, or a CD at Best Buy. Artists can make money by performing a live concert, licensing their works to TV, movies, advertising, selling physical albums (some people buy them even with free MP3s).

The internet doesn't seem to hurt artists as much as it hurts the industry. I think that is the true battle that is being fought by the corporations that have the most to lose if they can't adapt.

Winehole23

01-19-2012, 04:41 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-01-19/megaupload-feds-shutdown/52678528/1

Blake

01-19-2012, 04:42 PM

On some sales they can. Bargaining existed long before the internet.

Only if the seller opens it up for bargaining.

If he doesn't, you can't have it......unless you steal it.

Winehole23

01-19-2012, 04:44 PM

Megaupload and similar locker sites, like Rapidshare and Mediafire, are often promoted as being convenient ways to legitimately transfer large files — a recent promotional video had major stars like Will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas singing Megaupload’s praises. But they have become notorious among media companies, who see them as abetting copyright infringement on a large scale by giving people easy, but unauthorized, access to movies, music and other content.

Megaupload is currently engaged in a lawsuit with Universal over the promotional video and Universal’s efforts to have it removed from YouTube.

As part of the crackdown on Megaupload, 20 search warrants were executed in nine countries, including the United States. About $50 million in assets were also seized, as well as a number of servers and 18 domain names, the authorities said.

Ira P. Rothken, a lawyer for Megaupload, said in a phone interview on Thursday afternoon that he had not yet seen the indictment, but he added: “Clearly we have due process concerns. This was done without a hearing.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/technology/indictment-charges-megaupload-site-with-piracy.html

Blake

01-19-2012, 04:47 PM

ElNono

01-19-2012, 04:48 PM

Only if the seller opens it up for bargaining.

If he doesn't, you can't have it......unless you steal it.

Absolutely. As i said earlier, both the seller and the buyer have equal power to dictate terms.

ElNono

01-19-2012, 04:51 PM

The purpose of copyrights and copyright law is to make intellectual property tangible.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Nothing about making "intellectual property tangible" there...

ElNono

01-19-2012, 05:09 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/technology/indictment-charges-megaupload-site-with-piracy.html

Thanks for posting. Had no idea they went after them. Will be interesting to see how this develops because megaupload is certainly on that thin line where safe harbor provisions from the DMCA might apply.

mouse

01-19-2012, 05:16 PM

Useruser666

01-19-2012, 05:38 PM

The purpose of copyrights and copyright law is to make intellectual property tangible.

Making an exact duplicate of a song without permission is stealing the intellectual property.

You quoted me, but i don't feel what you stated relates to anything that I said.

If what you do can be duplicated at nearly no cost to anyone, and absolutely at none to you, why should you be rewarded for it? Before music could be recorded and sold on some type of media, how did artists make money, live performances? Now that the media is no longer needed, it's a difficult argument for you to make to me that they should profit from something that costs them nothing. I agree that it should be illegal to make a profit from the sale of the works, but not much more than that. It is a false sense of worth that has been exposed by technological advancement.

Blake

01-19-2012, 05:57 PM

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Nothing about making "intellectual property tangible" there...

I didn't reference the Constitution. Why would you think I did?

Copyrights have been around before it and the term intellectual property came long after.

Blake

01-19-2012, 06:04 PM

You quoted me, but i don't feel what you stated relates to anything that I said.

Yeah, you mentioned the grape being a tangible item.

If what you do can be duplicated at nearly no cost to anyone, and absolutely at none to you, why should you be rewarded for it?

Seriously?

One of the best answers to this question is specifically stated in the section of the Constitution that ElNono just quoted.

ElNono

01-19-2012, 06:11 PM

I didn't reference the Constitution. Why would you think I did?

Who claimed you did?

Copyrights have been around before it and the term intellectual property came long after.

And? That Constitutional mandate became the law of the land and voided anything else coming before it as far as the US is concerned (like the British copyright laws).

As far as that constitutional mandate is concerned, your contention that the purpose of copyright and copyright laws is to make "intellectual property tangible" is factually incorrect.

Useruser666

01-19-2012, 06:25 PM

Yeah, you mentioned the grape being a tangible item.

Seriously?

One of the best answers to this question is specifically stated in the section of the Constitution that ElNono just quoted.

Well first off, I'm not ElNono.

Second, when was that section written? Before or after the internet's birth?

Third, does making a copy at no cost and not making a profit from said copy reduce the author/inventor rights? To get a bit more to the point, it’s the right to profit from their work.

For example, recorded media was an invention that allowed artists (really record companies) to sell copies of their work without having to perform live. This was a boon to the industry. Before this, I would assume they were paid only for live shows. Now, digital media/the internet has reduced the value of recorded media. Artists may not sell as many physical/digital copies as before as the value of the media has been reduced. The right to profit from the work should be protected, but you can’t artificially inflate the value of an antiquated medium.

Times have changed.

Spurminator

01-19-2012, 09:26 PM

You quoted me, but i don't feel what you stated relates to anything that I said.

You'll have to excuse Blake, he's clearly out of his league here. He can't even keep up with what HE'S saying.

ElNono

01-19-2012, 11:44 PM

You'll have to excuse Blake, he's clearly out of his league here. He can't even keep up with what HE'S saying.

I'll save him what's likely going to be his reply:

crofl you lil pirate, you

velik_m

01-20-2012, 08:55 AM

The Evil New Tactic Behind Anonymous’ Massive Megaupload Revenge Attack

The hacktivist collective Anonymous is in the middle of a huge revenge spree after the Feds shut down popular filesharing site Megaupload today. But they're using an evil new tactic that tricks people into helping their attack if they click an innocuous link.

The Department of Justice, MPAA and Universal Music websites have all been taken down in the past hour as part of Operation Megaupload, which is shaping up to be the biggest Anonymous campaign in months.

Here's one reason they've been able to muster so much firepower: Anonymous members are distributing a link that ropes internet users into an illegal DDoS attack against these websites simply by clicking it. The link is being shared widely on Twitter and in Anonymous chat rooms, often with no context except that it relates to Operation Megaload. I clicked it a few minutes ago because it was being spammed in an Anonymous chatroom and found myself instantly DDoSing Universalmusic.com, my computer rapidly pinging the page with no way to stop except quickly closing the window.
...

http://gawker.com/5877707/

Wild Cobra

01-20-2012, 09:01 AM

Blake

01-20-2012, 09:31 AM

Who claimed you did?

so you posted a part of the Constitution that nobody asked for in order to show where "intellectual property" isn't located.

And? That Constitutional mandate became the law of the land and voided anything else coming before it as far as the US is concerned (like the British copyright laws).

As far as that constitutional mandate is concerned, your contention that the purpose of copyright and copyright laws is to make "intellectual property tangible" is factually incorrect.

I didn't say that making "intellectual property" tangible was constitutionally mandated. Again, I never mentioned the Consitution to you.

I'm guessing by your previous response though that this is just another post where you are letting us know where something that nobody asked for isn't located.

Blake

01-20-2012, 09:38 AM

Well first off, I'm not ElNono.

Right. I thought it was pretty clear I was talking to you regarding your specific question.

Second, when was that section written? Before or after the internet's birth?

Before.

Third, does making a copy at no cost and not making a profit from said copy reduce the author/inventor rights? To get a bit more to the point, it’s the right to profit from their work.

The potential is there, but it's really an irrelevant argument.

Whether an artist has the intention to make a profit off of his creation or not, if he says you can't copy it, then you can't.

If you do, you are stealing it.

It really is very simple.

Blake

01-20-2012, 09:40 AM

You'll have to excuse Blake, he's clearly out of his league here. He can't even keep up with what HE'S saying.

I've kept up with what I'm saying.

I've kept up with what you are saying too, Long John.

Blake

01-20-2012, 09:43 AM

I'll save him what's likely going to be his reply:

crofl you lil pirate, you

Close, no cigar.

Useruser666

01-20-2012, 10:36 AM

Right. I thought it was pretty clear I was talking to you regarding your specific question.

Before.

The potential is there, but it's really an irrelevant argument.

Whether an artist has the intention to make a profit off of his creation or not, if he says you can't copy it, then you can't.

If you do, you are stealing it.

It really is very simple.

I disagree that it’s irrelevant and also disagree that copying = stealing.
Example:
I buy a cd. I allow others to copy it for free. In this case the work was purchased from the
IP creator and that purchased item was the one copied. The copy has no value so can there be theft?

And I also disagree that it is simple. So 3 for 3 I guess. lol

Agloco

01-20-2012, 11:01 AM

I disagree that it’s irrelevant and also disagree that copying = stealing.
Example:
I buy a cd. I allow others to copy it for free. In this case the work was purchased from the
IP creator and that purchased item was the one copied. The copy has no value so can there be theft?

And I also disagree that it is simple. So 3 for 3 I guess. lol

I'm not making an argument one way or the other here. I'm simply asking about what might be a literal vs figurative translation of the word "value".

From my perspective, the copy must have value or it would not have been created in the first place. Granted, that value is limited to the person(s) requesting the copy I suppose.....

My question is then, about what is the sense in which we talk about value? What metric do we use to determine it? I know some posts hinted at tangible vs intellectual property. Is that the central question being debated here?

Apologies if the question seems a bit off, it's just that I'm not versed on Constitutional law whatsoever. I also didn't have time to review all of the posts here.

Blake

01-20-2012, 11:02 AM

I disagree that it’s irrelevant and also disagree that copying = stealing.

You and many others have made that quite clear.

Example:
I buy a cd. I allow others to copy it for free. In this case the work was purchased from the
IP creator and that purchased item was the one copied. The copy has no value so can there be theft?

You are allowing others to walk away with property that they don't have the right to take.

As has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread, from a legal jargon standpoint, the law does not look at that as theft.

From a plain dictionary standpoint, I look at it as theft. From a common sense standpoint, I think it's silly to suggest it's not.

Blake

01-20-2012, 11:08 AM

I'm simply asking about what might be a literal vs figurative translation of the word "value".

From my perspective, the copy must have value or it would not have been created in the first place. Granted, that value is limited to the person(s) requesting the copy I suppose.....

If there is a copyright on the CD, then the copyright holder has placed a value on it greater than zero, be it monetary, sentimental or any other kind of value.

ElNono

01-20-2012, 11:24 AM

so you posted a part of the Constitution that nobody asked for in order to show where "intellectual property" isn't located.

I posted an example of purpose of Copyright that flies in the face of your claim. It's understandable you don't like that.

I didn't say that making "intellectual property" tangible was constitutionally mandated. Again, I never mentioned the Consitution to you.

Is your argument that I'm wrong? If it is, let's see your argument for "the purpose of Copyright and Copyright laws is to make intellectual property tangible".

ElNono

01-20-2012, 11:38 AM

I'm not making an argument one way or the other here. I'm simply asking about what might be a literal vs figurative translation of the word "value".

From my perspective, the copy must have value or it would not have been created in the first place. Granted, that value is limited to the person(s) requesting the copy I suppose.....

My question is then, about what is the sense in which we talk about value? What metric do we use to determine it? I know some posts hinted at tangible vs intellectual property. Is that the central question being debated here?

Apologies if the question seems a bit off, it's just that I'm not versed on Constitutional law whatsoever. I also didn't have time to review all of the posts here.

I think this is where things get murky. I understand that if the copyright holder decided to give out a complimentary copy at a loss (happens all the time, for example, with loss leaders), it's very likely that copy represents a lost sale for him. I just don't necessarily agree that such dynamic translates, in all cases, to unauthorized copies. I think there's instances where some people are fully aware of the legal nature of the copy they obtained, and do reward the IP creator. There's many reasons to see how this would work (CuckingFunt was giving an example before, where certain material wasn't available on the format he/she wanted/needed).

And this isn't pointing towards justifying anything. Everybody pretty much knows what they're doing and what the consequences of such actions are.

Blake

01-20-2012, 11:43 AM

I posted an example of purpose of Copyright that flies in the face of your claim. It's understandable you don't like that.

lol flies in the face

I figured it would be understood that if it is impossible to physically touch intangible property that it would therefore be impossible for the law to allow a person to touch it.

Is your argument that I'm wrong? If it is, let's see your argument for "the purpose of Copyright and Copyright laws is to make intellectual property tangible".

.....The term intellectual property can be found used in an October 1845 Massachusetts Circuit Court ruling in the patent case Davoll et al. v. Brown., in which Justice Charles L. Woodbury wrote that "only in this way can we protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions and interests are as much a man's own...as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears." (1 Woodb. & M. 53, 3 West.L.J. 151, 7 F.Cas. 197, No. 3662, 2 Robb.Pat.Cas. 303, Merw.Pat.Inv. 414).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

/your face

ElNono

01-20-2012, 12:01 PM

I figured it would be understood that if it is impossible to physically touch intangible property that it would therefore be impossible for the law to allow a person to touch it.

So why do you make such a claim if you already know it's bullshit?

/your face

I still don't see any Copyright mandate or Copyright law expressing that it's purpose is to make intellectual property tangible... let me know when you find that.

crofl still flying in your face

boutons_deux

01-20-2012, 12:11 PM

Despite social media campaign, Lamar Smith moving on SOPA

Despite a public relations victory for the tech industry against online piracy bills, a San Antonio lawmaker at the center of the firestorm vowed Thursday to continue with legislation targeting foreign websites selling counterfeit U.S. goods.

Rep. Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he bowed to pressure and removed the most contentious measure in the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA.

And even with a crescendo of criticism that the bill will foster censorship and an expansion of law enforcement power, Smith said: “I am prepared to move forward.”

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-on-the-potomac/2012/01/despite-social-media-campaign-lamar-smith-moving-on-sopa/

===============

PIPA Vote: Sen. Harry Reid Postpones Vote, Seeking Compromise On Anti-Piracy Bill

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced Friday morning that he would postpone a vote Tuesday on the Protect I.P. Act (PIPA).

"In light of recent events, I have decided to postpone Tuesday’s vote on the PROTECT I.P. Act," he said in a statement. "There is no reason that the legitimate issues raised by many about this bill cannot be resolved. Counterfeiting and piracy cost the American economy billions of dollars and thousands of jobs each year, with the movie industry alone supporting over 2.2 million jobs. We must take action to stop these illegal practices. We live in a country where people rightfully expect to be fairly compensated for a day’s work, whether that person is a miner in the high desert of Nevada, an independent band in New York City, or a union worker on the back lots of a California movie studio."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) urged Reid to shelve the bill Thursday. The bill lost several prominent supporters, including many original co-sponsors, on Wednesday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/20/pipa-vote-harry-reid-piracy_n_1218702.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=012012&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief