The next 'war on drugs'...

[Winehole23]

Economics researchers at Wellesley College and U Minnesota have published a study showing that feature films' US box office returns are not correlated to BitTorrent sharing. They also show that shorter delays between the US exhibition and overseas releases result in less file-sharing -- that is, people outside the US download movies because they can't buy tickets to them.

http://boingboing.net/2012/02/13/bit...urt-us-bo.html

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1986299

[Spurminator]

The Pirate Bay's Peter Sunde: It's evolution, stupid
By Peter Sunde 13 February 12
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...unde-evolution

When I was 9 years old I got my first computer, an Amiga 500. It was the best computer ever built, with great graphics, amazing sound and seven times faster than the Commodore 64. One of my friends said that the Amiga was useless since you needed to boot it from floppies. On the C64 you could program without even a cassette.

Of course the C64 died while the Amiga flourished. The Amiga later died when even better technology came along. We all know how evolution works, except one industry that refuses to evolve: the entertainment industry.

Instead of looking at evolution as something inevitable, the industry has made it their business to refuse and/or sue change, by any necessary means.

In the case of The Pirate Bay, it's been particularly obvious. My fellow co-founders -- Fredrik Neij and Gottfrid Svartholm -- and I were convicted in 2009 of contributory copyright infringement. Last week the Supreme Court of Sweden refused to hear our appeal. We each face between four months and one year in prison. My sentence was eight months.

Of course I would have preferred to win in the Supreme Court as personal vindication and to vacate my sentence. But beyond that, the Court has squandered a golden opportunity to define how to interpret the European Union directives for digital information. That decision not to decide has prompted many legal experts in Sweden to question the motives of denying the appeal. But the questionable decisions started long before that.

The Swedish prosecutor sent out a memo in 2006 saying that TPB wasn't guilty of "main" crimes -- at best it aids and abets (he also mentioned that the people running TPB were very clever). But Hollywood was not happy with this and forced the Swedish Minister of Justice to visit the White House and talk about it. The United States told Sweden that if they didn't get rid of the site, they would not be allowed to trade with the US!

The minister (illegally) told the prosecutor what had happened which forced him to raid TPB -- only a few weeks after sending out that memo about how legal it was.

Evidently, Warner Brothers felt that the investigation was taking too long. The studio contacted the police officer in charge of the investigation (one person that worked mostly by himself) and before I had even been questioned by him, he interviewed for a job with Warner Brothers.

When we found out he'd been hired (by him changing his employer from "Polisen" to "Warner Bros" on Facebook) the reply we got was that it was proof that Swedish IT police are of such high caliber that even the big US companies would hire them.

I got promoted from "witness" to "suspect" a week after the job was promised.

WATCH NOW: Peter Sunde's talk at the Wired conference

During the trial it turned out that the judge was the chairman for the Swedish pro-copyright society, one lay judge ran a record company, another one was formerly the chairman for the songwriter lobby organisation. I could go on.

The problem here is that we're allowing this dying industry to dictate the terms of our democracy. We allow them to dictate new laws (ACTA, SOPA, PIPA, IPRED, IPRED2, TPP, TRIPS, to name a few recent ones) that forbid evolution. If you don't give up before you're sued, they corrupt the legal system.

As I wrote immediately after the Supreme Court's refusal to hear our appeal: "Today I urge everyone to make sure that the entertainment industry does not profit from them anymore. Stop seeing their movies. Stop listening to their music. Make sure that you find alternative ways to culture.

"Spread and participate in culture. Remix, reuse, use, abuse. Make sure no one controls your mind. Create new systems and technology that cir vent the corruption. Start a religion. Start your own nation, or buy one. Buy a bus. Crush it to pieces."

The internet is being controlled by a corrupt industry. We need to stop it.

Update: Due to an editing error, Carl Lundström was identified as a co-founder of The Pirate Bay. Though Lundström was convicted, he and the three co-founders say he wasn't involved in the site.

Source: Wired.com

[Blake]

Rofl claiming copyright infringement is simple evolution

[Winehole23]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...omain-seizure/

[Spurminator]

Rofl claiming copyright infringement is simple evolution

Piracy is a byproduct of the industry's refusal to evolve. I think you missed the point of the article, though.

[mouse]

Rofl claiming copyright infringement is simple evolution

What part of modern evolution do you not get?

[mouse]

[mouse]

[Blake]

Piracy is a byproduct of the industry's refusal to evolve. I think you missed the point of the article, though.

Rofl.

Feel free to share what you feel the point of the article is.

[Winehole23]

http://news.yahoo.com/eu-suspends-co...125425030.html

[Spurminator]

Rofl.

Feel free to share what you feel the point of the article is.

Do you need pictures?

If you don't give up before you're sued, they corrupt the legal system.

[Blake]

Do you need pictures?

Thanks for confirming I got the point the first time.

Rofl claiming that copyright infringement is just natural evolution

Rofl pirates

[Spurminator]

Brilliant observation as usual! rofl!

[LnGrrrR]

All items seem to have a natural price point, what the consumer is willing to accept. If prices go higher than this point, than the industry has to accept that some amount of their product will be obtained by illegal means. Obviously, the consumer has devalued music now that there are more and more ways to hear it. (And not just illegally... I can go to youtube and look up nearly any song I want to hear, there's Pandora, etc etc.)

What Spurm is getting at is that instead of realizing a healthy price point, the industry obstinately decided to keep their prices at the same level they were at when it wasn't as easy to pirate.

And instead of lowering their prices, they decided to load both barrels and try to go after the people downloading music through lawsuits. I don't think that was the right strategic decision to make, personally. It only emboldened others to not give the music industries any profit.

When you take that along with a few small-sample size examples like Radiohead and Tool offering their albums for free (or whatever you wanted to pay), and still making a decent amount, it tells me that the music industry was short-sighted.

[LnGrrrR]

Blake, if every grocery store in your local area started charging, say, 20 bucks for a loaf of bread, would you agree or disagree that those stores would likely see an uptick in theft of bread?

[Blake]

Brilliant observation as usual! rofl!

Your sympathy towards piracy and pirates is rofl as usual.

[Blake]

Blake, if every grocery store in your local area started charging, say, 20 bucks for a loaf of bread, would you agree or disagree that those stores would likely see an uptick in theft of bread?

Might see an increase in tortilla sales.

Hard to say, but I won't argue that there wouldn't be an uptick in theft.

Should there be no law against stealing bread if the price hits $20 a loaf?

[LnGrrrR]

Might see an increase in tortilla sales.

Hard to say, but I won't argue that there wouldn't be an uptick in theft.

Should there be no law against stealing bread if the price hits $20 a loaf?

I'm speaking more from a real-world perspective. The people who price bread understand that the higher it goes, the more likely theft will occur. Moreso if the perceived value of bread would drop.

(And on a tangent, I find it funny that we certainly wouldn't call it theft if I had a device that could clone bread, and walked into a grocery store and made a physical copy of that bread, then walked out without paying for the original bread I copied.)

[Blake]

I'm speaking more from a real-world perspective. The people who price bread understand that the higher it goes, the more likely theft will occur. Moreso if the perceived value of bread would drop.

Where in the real world should thieves be able to dictate market value?

Should there be a law against stealing $20 bread?

(And on a tangent, I find it funny that we certainly wouldn't call it theft if I had a device that could clone bread, and walked into a grocery store and made a physical copy of that bread, then walked out without paying for the original bread I copied.)

The Wal Mart greeter might ask you where the bread came from, but technically it wouldn't be theft because afaik, there's no copyright on bread.

If you walked into a music store, made a copy of a song, then walked out without paying for it, I'd call that theft.

[LnGrrrR]

Where in the real world should thieves be able to dictate market value?

Should there be a law against stealing $20 bread?

There should be a law against stealing bread, whichever the price. That said, of course thieves play a role in dictating market value. The more valuable an item is, the more likely it is to be stolen. The market then responds, usually by putting up more security.

However, the big problem with music/movies is that the music industry can't put enough "security" on their product to compete with thousands of piraters. They keep trying to implement security (RIAA, rootkits), but it's just pissing customers off. And then, instead of reversing course, they just push forward trying to sue customers. It's not very good optics for the community.

The Wal Mart greeter might ask you where the bread came from, but technically it wouldn't be theft because afaik, there's no copyright on bread.

If you walked into a music store, made a copy of a song, then walked out without paying for it, I'd call that theft.

Hence why I thought it was funny. Music and movies are not "essential" items, but would be much more protected by current laws than cloning of necessary items.

[Spurminator]

The Wal Mart greeter might ask you where the bread came from, but technically it wouldn't be theft because afaik, there's no copyright on bread.

The bread maker could argue that they have a proprietary "recipe" or way of making their bread that you are stealing. They've lost $4 because you obviously would have purchased their bread if you did not have the capability to make an exact replica of it.

[Blake]

There should be a law against stealing bread, whichever the price.

Agreed. Further, if a person is caught stealing bread, should or shouldn't they be prosecuted on criminal charges?

That said, of course thieves play a role in dictating market value. The more valuable an item is, the more likely it is to be stolen. The market then responds, usually by putting up more security.

Interesting. Where else in the real world exactly does theft directly affect market value and it's simply considered to be normal business?

However, the big problem with music/movies is that the music industry can't put enough "security" on their product to compete with thousands of piraters. They keep trying to implement security (RIAA, rootkits), but it's just pissing customers off. And then, instead of reversing course, they just push forward trying to sue customers. It's not very good optics for the community.

Irrelevant problem, imo.

Hence why I thought it was funny. Music and movies are not "essential" items, but would be much more protected by current laws than cloning of necessary items.

I don't know what you are referring to, tbh.

Since the cost of bread is low, the punishment here would be a light misdemeanor, but grand theft is still a felony.

[Blake]

The bread maker could argue that they have a proprietary "recipe" or way of making their bread that you are stealing. They've lost $4 because you obviously would have purchased their bread if you did not have the capability to make an exact replica of it.

You can only get a patent on a food item if it's new, useful and the composition non-obvious. A bread maker generally cannot get a patent for a loaf of white sandwich bread.

If they did somehow get a patent and you copy and take it, then yes, theft.

[ElNono]

There are laws making copyright infringement both a civil and criminal offense. Lack of laws isn't the problem. If anything, the problem is the lack of resources to enforce such laws which makes them somewhat ineffective.

Going with the bread analogy, should supermarket owners have the ability sequester cars without court oversight because the car might contain a loaf of stolen bread?

And that's why some of these proposed laws are simply inadequate.

There's certainly a problem that needs to be addressed. This just isn't the way to do it.

[DarkReign]

Always been a big proponent of no copyright laws whatsoever. If there had to be, it should be extremely short and limited.

I understand America was founded on "having an idea and making money on it" but that was because the country was founded in juxtaposition to the Crown owning everything.

Whats so wrong with no one owning anything? If you really wanted to be the an hesis of the prior system, that would be it.

Moreover, with no copyright protection, there is no impetus to share it. Example: I invent a new engine unlike any before. My window of opportunity is limited to hit the market should I want to start making them myself, but you know what? Someone who makes engines will buy it even without a guarantee of owning the design for 20+ years. The price of that purchase could be tied to units sold, etc. Or it could be one giant lump sum.

Point is, I havent lost and the will to invent hasnt been hindered. People bemoan capitalism because the current form we practice is anything but a "free market".

I have only used 4 illegally obtained programs in my lifetime of computer use and they are so incredibly outdated that talking about them is moot. I believe in buying what you want to see more from, support the music you like, for example.

I dont do it because its illegal or because the court system in this favors big business copyrighting every single micro element of existence, from food, to biology to drugs. Did you know you can copyright DNA strains? Thats "patently" ridiculous (yuck yuck).

But thats the world we live in. If your adherence to law is such that these things do not bother you and that copyrighting is the only way, fine. You have the government, law and international community on your side because thats the way its been for centuries.

But it will never, ever stop the world from obtaining what they want by other means. The government and its proponents can fight the good fight now, but know this...in the end, you will lose this war. May not be in your lifetime, but your position will end being mocked by future generations as "archaic thinking". You know what? It is archaic thinking already, just too damn many people cant wrap their mind around new concepts that betray old truths about ownership and en lement.