Canadian Gov Withdraws DMCA Bill—Can They Withdraw Ours?

Our friends up north are showing good sense again. After a substantial public outcry, their gov is withdrawing a duplicate of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (also known as the "Everything interesting you can do on a computer is illegal" bill).

I sincerely hope it goes down in flames, and that legislators plow salt into the fields that grew it. Fair use has been taking a serious beating in the Western world, with copyright holders extending their powers as quickly as the rewritten laws will allow.

Any chance we can repeal the DMCA in the United States? Remind me why it should be a Federal crime for me to decrypt a DVD I own?

Because you don't own the DVD, just the right to use it. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Our friends up north are showing good sense again.

---

We're only sometimes as stupid as we look. The rest of time, we're either completely as stupid as we look or are simply so damn good looking that no one cares how stupid we are. :sunny:

One nice thing about having a minority government is that The Bozos actually have to listen to public opinion. I'm sure if they had a majority in parliament, they'd tell us to stuff it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Because you don't own the DVD, just the right to use it. :dizzy2:

---

Sometimes, using requires decrypting.
With region-coded DVD's that's almost always the case because you buy an encrypted product anyway.
Imagine you travel to another region and buy a DVD. You'd have the right to use it but you need to decrypt it to actually view it because a) your player doesn't allow another shift of regions or b) you're not using Windows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Because you don't own the DVD, just the right to use it. :dizzy2:

---

And here you put your finger on the entire point of DRM and encryption. It's not about discouraging piracy; it's about taking away my Fair Use rights, and selling them back to me, piece by piece.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

And here you put your finger on the entire point of DRM and encryption. It's not about discouraging piracy; it's about taking away my Fair Use rights, and selling them back to me, piece by piece.

---

You gave your rights away upon birth, usually. The only way to get them back requires a lot of money, usually. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul

Imagine you travel to another region and buy a DVD.

---

You're not supposed to do that, in some countries they imprison you for life for importing a few grams of marihuana. Anything else would completely destroy our inflated european prices and some poor guy may have to sell two of his ten yachts and his private jet. What a cruel thought of you...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Our friends up north are showing good sense again. After a substantial public outcry, their gov is withdrawing a duplicate of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (also known as the "Everything interesting you can do on a computer is illegal" bill).

I sincerely hope it goes down in flames, and that legislators plow salt into the fields that grew it. Fair use has been taking a serious beating in the Western world, with copyright holders extending their powers as quickly as the rewritten laws will allow.

Any chance we can repeal the DMCA in the United States? Remind me why it should be a Federal crime for me to decrypt a DVD I own?

---

Guess I'm the bearer of bad news again...
To be fair, the bill has only been postponed; so withdrawn, but temporarily. They'll put it forward again, although I don't know when.

While it may give us a warm feeling to believe that the reason for this is the protests (and maybe they DID contribute; I'd like to think so, since I did a little myself), Beirut is right: it's a minority gov't, and enough noise has been made over this that they probably want to avoid a possible facedown with the opposition, and risk a confidence vote over something relatively minor like this...

Rest assured that politicians are the same everywhere, and they care much more about the almighty dollar, than their voters...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Any chance we can repeal the DMCA in the United States? Remind me why it should be a Federal crime for me to decrypt a DVD I own?

---

Actually, as I'm sure you must be aware by now, on the contrary.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...end-money.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Congress' copyright reform: seize computers, boost penalties, spend money

By Nate Anderson | Published: December 06, 2007 - 01:16PM CT

A bipartisan group of Congressmen (and one woman) yesterday introduced a major bill aimed at boosting US intellectual property laws and the penalties that go along with them. While much of the legislation targets industrial counterfeiting and knockoff drugs, it also allows the government to seize people's computers.
Related Stories

* "Attempted infringement" appears in new House intellectual property bill
* C-SPAN to make most video of Congress freely available
* SCO never owned UNIX copyrights, owes Novell 95 percent of UNIX royalties
* Radio stations want Congress to look into major label recording contracts

The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO IP... groan) Act of 2007 has the backing of many of the most powerful politicians on the House Judiciary Committee, including John Conyers (D-MI), Lamar Smith (R-TX), and "Hollywood" Howard Berman (D-CA).

In addition to strengthening both civil and criminal penalties for copyright and trademark infringement, the big development here is the proposed creation of the Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative (USIPER). This is a new executive branch office tasked with coordinating IP enforcement at the national and international level. To do this work internationally, the bill also authorizes US intellectual property officers to be sent to other countries in order to assist with crackdowns there. In addition, the Department of Justice gets additional funding and a new unit to help prosecute IP crimes.

The bill, which will have a committee hearing soon, is supposed to kick-start the copyright reform process talked about for so long. But copyright reform means one thing to the PRO IP sponsors and another to the consumer groups that have been advocating for it.

Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, said in a statement, "seizing expensive manufacturing equipment used for large-scale infringement from a commercial pirate may be appropriate. Seizing a family's general-purpose computer in a download case, as this bill would allow, is not appropriate."

In addition, she protests the increase in "already extraordinary copyright damages" and calls for damages to be linked more closely to actual harm suffered by copyright holders.

The Digital Freedom Campaign, backed by the EFF, Public Knowledge, and the Consumer Electronics Association, was more muted in its criticism, instead choosing to praise the legislation for launching a "conversation" about copyright reform. The Digital Freedom Campaign's Maura Corbett said that meaningful copyright reform "must include limits on statutory damages and the codification of the vital principles of fair use," and she hopes that PRO IP "will serve as a catalyst to larger, more meaningful reform."

Fortunately, at least some members of the Judiciary Committee are at least aware that the consumer groups have legitimate points to make. Berman, who chairs the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property, announced that his subcommittee would hold a hearing next week on the issue.

"As a cosponsor, I obviously feel very strongly that we must strengthen enforcement efforts to fight piracy and counterfeiting," Berman said. "At the hearing, we will be hearing testimony from both industry experts and from labor and consumer advocates to make sure that in doing so, we don't deny appropriate access to America's intellectual property."

Who is thrilled with the bill? The MPAA, for one. MPAA head Dan Glickman, in a statement praising the new bill, said that "films left costs foreign and domestic distributors, retailers and others $18 billion a year," a significant increase from the $6 billion it allegedly costs the studios.

An interesting commentary on it (from a biased source, as usual): http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9829826-38.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Major copyright bill boosts penalties, creates new agency
Posted by Declan McCullagh

In the aftermath of the $222,000 jury verdict that the Recording Industry Association of America recently won against a Minnesota woman who shared 24 songs on Kazaa, the U.S. Congress is preparing to amend copyright law.

Politicians want to increase penalties for copyright infringement.

It's no joke. Top Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday introduced a sweeping 69-page bill that ratchets up civil penalties for copyright infringement, boosts criminal enforcement, and even creates a new federal agency charged with bringing about a national and international copyright crackdown.

"By providing additional resources for enforcement of intellectual property, we ensure that innovation and creativity will continue to prosper in our society," Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich) said in a statement.

The legislation, called the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act, or PRO IP Act, is throughly bipartisan. The top Republican, Lamar Smith of Texas, on the Judiciary committee is a sponsor. So is Howard Berman (D-Calif.), the chair of the subcommittee that writes copyright law, and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).

The Motion Picture Association of America, which has long championed stiffer copyright laws such as this fall's legislation aimed at file trading at universities, applauded the PRO IP Act as well.

"I believe that the American business community can speak in one voice today in support of these legislative efforts to protect intellectual property," MPAA Chairman Dan Glickman said in a statement. "I am pleased to see a concerted effort by Congress to address this growing problem, and the MPAA looks forward to working with congressional leaders in the weeks to come."

Here are some of the major sections of the PRO IP Act:

* Fines in copyright cases dealing with compilations would be increased. Right now, as in the case of Xoom v. Imageline, the maximum penalty for infringement of one compilation is $30,000. Now courts would be able to make "multiple awards of statutory damages" when compilations are infringed.

* Maximum penalties for repeat copyright offenders would be easier to obtain. Current law says that anyone who "willfully" infringes a copyright by distributing over $1,000 worth of material (including over a peer-to-peer network) is a criminal. The PRO IP Act keeps the 10-year prison term intact for felonious repeat offenders--but, crucially, deletes the requirement that repeat offenders must have distributed at least 10 copyrighted works within 180 days.

* Any computer or network hardware used to "facilitate" a copyright crime could be seized by the Justice Department and auctioned off. The proceeds would be funneled to the agency's budget. The process is called civil asset forfeiture, and typically the owner does not need to be found guilty of a crime for his property to be taken.

Probably the most extensive part of the PRO IP Act is its creation of a new federal bureaucracy called the White House Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative, or WHIPER. The head of WHIPER would be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

WHIPER seems to be modeled after the U.S. Trade Representative, with the head of the new agency bearing the rank of "Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary." WHIPER's head is charged with being the president's principal advisor and spokesman for intellectual property matters, as well as identifying countries that don't adequately protect IP rights. It gets to create its own official seal as well, and the WHIPER head appears to be paid as well as the attorney general and secretary of defense ($186,600 in 2007).

One of WHIPER's major tasks would be to create a "Joint Strategic Plan" that, in part, involves "identifying individuals" involved in the "trafficking" of "pirated goods." An annual report is due to Congress by December 31 of each year. In addition, 10 "intellectual property attaches" are intended to be dispatched to embassies around the world.

Finally, the U.S. Justice Department's intellectual property enforcement apparatus would be completely revamped. An "Intellectual Property Enforcement Division" would be created and subsume the IP-related functions that the department's computer crime section in the criminal division currently performs. The new division would receive $25 million per year to start with.

So you get yet _another_ federal agency, yay for small gov't! A fed agency whose only purpose is to track down those naughty, naughty downloaders - good priorities here!
And the really scary (to me, anyway) part ? The civil assets forfeiture twist.

Oh, and in case your Christmas basket wasn't full enough, here's some more good news:
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9135/RI...racy+Crackdown

More friendly Christmas letters from the trigger-happy RIAA!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

RIAA Launches Christmas Piracy Crackdown
posted by soulxtc in file sharing // 23 hours 16 minutes ago

4
votes
vote


The RIAA continues to intimidate the people it once referred to as "some its best customers" with word that it has launched round 11 of its crackdown on campus piracy nationwide.

This time 396 pre-litigation settlement letters were sent out to 22 universities as part of the ongoing campaign against online music theft.

As before, the RIAA is kind enough to allow students the opportunity to resolve copyright infringement claims against them at a discounted rate before a formal lawsuit is filed and bypass the legal process altogether. Each pre-litigation settlement letter informs the school of a forthcoming copyright infringement suit against one of its students or personnel. The letter requests that university administrators forward the letter to the appropriate network user to allow the individuals the opportunity to promptly resolve the matter and avoid having it heard before a judge a jury.


In the eleventh wave of this initiative, the RIAA this week sent letters in the following quantities to 22 schools including:


* Auburn University (13)

* Brandeis University (12)

* Georgia Institute of Technology (16)

* Gustavus Adolphus College (36)

* Indiana State University (18)

* Iowa State University (13)

* Ithaca College (15)

* Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (16)

* Louisiana Tech University (15)

* Mississippi State University (15)

* Morehead State University (17)

* Rochester Institute of Technology (12)

* University of Arizona (14)

* University of California, Davis (14)

* University of California, San Diego (17)

* University of California, Santa Cruz (24)

* University of Dayton (16)

* University of Massachusetts at Amherst (30)

* University of Rochester (15)

* University of Southern California (33)

* University of Washington (16)

* Western Kentucky University (19)


An interesting question that seems left out of the discussion is that are these rounds of lawsuits, or "settlements" as the RIAA calls them, really only a haphazard scheme that unfairly targets only those students who live on campus?

Off-campus students who are of course using an internet connection outside that of their campus network aren't subject to the same sort of scrutiny by network administrators or RIAA hired guns, and in many cases comprise a majority of the student body. In essence, it comes down to a true minority of students who are the subject of these incessant "settlement" rounds by the RIAA and could serve to be another reason why music fans will boycott the RIAA and the purchase of physical CDs, the bread and butter of the record labels.

I mean isn't it unreasonable for the RIAA to focus only on dorm residents just because they are easier to locate thanks to being able to use campus resources? Many more people illegally download in the off-campus student community and go unpunished because the RIAA has no means to find them.

Considering the number of students who are able to illegally download because they no longer live in the dorms, it's uncertain whether the RIAA is going to accomplish anything in the end.

Additionally, the RIAA is basically freeloading off of vital campus resources by making network administrators do all the work and bear all the costs of installing and maintaining anti-P2P and file-sharing measures so that its content won't be illegally distributed. Rather than have funds that could be made available for additional classes in an popular or overcrowded subject, a school has to instead waste it on making sure that little freshman Billy isn't trading Bon Jovi's greatest hits with his buddies.

The news comes on top of recent efforts by Congress to Increase Penalties for Copyright Infringemeny. The “Prioritizing Resources and Organization of Intellectual Property Act of 2007” would strengthen civil and criminal intellectual property laws while ensuring that it gets ample attention from federal govt by creating an office of intellectual property within the White House. That's right, it would create a new federal agency whose sole mission would be to track down on those who illegally share content using P2P and file-sharing services.

I try to be fair minded. I have various rare, life threatening and expensive illnesses (PSC, UC, Addisson's) and I'm still against universal health care because I don't think that it is fair - even though it would help me like you don't even know. I also have respect for law.

However I have never been able to convince myself that decryption, digital copying and file-sharing are unethical or that they deserve to be illegal. Much less a Federal offense. I just can't.

Selling copied merchandise is arguably unethical, but personal/relative/friend use is just a better form of memory.

What kills me is how these laws criminalize perfectly legitimate uses of technology. Let's say I want to take some of my kids' DVDs and convert them into a format they can watch on a handheld Divx player for a car trip.

I bought the films. I own the media. I just want to use them in a different device.

But bypassing the weak encryption on the DVD would make me a Federal criminal. By the industry's lights, I should either buy another version of Spirited Away, or, if they don't offer the file type I need, I should shut the hell up and ignore the fact that I already paid for the film.

This was made super-extra clear when that industry rep testified that we shouldn't be allowed to rip MP3s from CDs when we want to listen to music at the computer. That ought to be a crime, or so she said. We purchased the right to listen to a CD, and mp3 or m4a versions of the song should be purchased separately.

Never mind the fact that the first thing most people do after installing iTunes or WinAmp is to rip their CD collection. Never mind the fact that they paid for all of that music. They're criminals, and they should be put in jail!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

What kills me is how these laws criminalize perfectly legitimate uses of technology. Let's say I want to take some of my kids' DVDs and convert them into a format they can watch on a handheld Divx player for a car trip.

I bought the films. I own the media. I just want to use them in a different device.

But bypassing the weak encryption on the DVD would make me a Federal criminal. By the industry's lights, I should either buy another version of Spirited Away, or, if they don't offer the file type I need, I should shut the hell up and ignore the fact that I already paid for the film.

This was made super-extra clear when that industry rep testified that we shouldn't be allowed to rip MP3s from CDs when we want to listen to music at the computer. That ought to be a crime, or so she said. We purchased the right to listen to a CD, and mp3 or m4a versions of the song should be purchased separately.

Never mind the fact that the first thing most people do after installing iTunes or WinAmp is to rip their CD collection. Never mind the fact that they paid for all of that music. They're criminals, and they should be put in jail!

---

It's a joke. Reality will set in when actors, artists and musicians are relegated to their minstrel/acting troop past and are forced to work for pay. The industry will die soon and we will all be better for it.

Kids are starting to be able to make films on par with theater movies, Bands record in basements what previously was studio quality work, Game companies are making money off of user created content that is more popular than the template software. More passionate music. More original story lines. Better Concerts. Better Video Games.

Personal collections of entertainment without government in the pocket of big industry (at least with regard to entertainment)

Blodrast, do you also kill kittens at childrens' parties? Man, that's some depressing stuff ...

It is so warped that this countries Federal system will jail and fine citizens for downloading a few songs, but does so little to enforce major Immigration laws. I don't even need to mention it's abortion laws where there is a legalized mass murder occurring every week - yet it does nothing there either.

What a preposterous joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Blodrast, do you also kill kittens at childrens' parties? Man, that's some depressing stuff ...

---

Yep, I save that as my last trick of the night - s-l-o-w-l-y.
Actually, I _did_ intend to link to the new claim of RIAA that ripping CDs to mp3's is "unauthorized", but I thought there was enough bad juju in one post...

I'd heard of the civil assets forfeiture before, but passingly, and I thought "well, you know, it's prolly another one of those laws that nobody really applies", but I read up a bit on it (in the context of the war on drugs, and, boy, is that a scary one...).
And of course it leads to all kinds of selective enforcement and ridiculous scenarious such as, friend/guest comes to visit you and does some illegal stuff on your machine, bam, or malicious "reports" by bad neighbours causing you to be "investigated" (and you can bet that you can find "incriminating" stuff on anybody's machine, considering what's illegal these days), or employer having "illegal" content on the company's machine - will they confiscate the company's assets ? And the weird scenarios can keep on coming...

Completely messed up, is what it is. A whole new Fed agency created at the whim of the media companies, AND one that will benefit from the confiscated stuff and incorporate the profits into its own budget - sheesh...

Another part that kinda makes me sad is that most people don't care, and think it's a completely irrelevant issue, that will never concern them... and they'd be right, in a normal society. But when kids are being sued, when people without computers are being sued, and when dead people are being sued, I'm not so sure they should find too much comfort in that.

One mistake from little Timmy, or little Timmy's friend, and if they ever take a look at your computer, that's that.
Yet people still go on saying "That'll never happen", except the suing of the dead people, and old people who can't tell a microwave from a vcr, DID happen, as did the quarter-million "fine" for sharing a handful of songs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

Yet people still go on saying "That'll never happen", except the suing of the dead people, and old people who can't tell a microwave from a vcr, DID happen, as did the quarter-million "fine" for sharing a handful of songs...

---

Most people care more about if their gay neighbors can marry or not. ~;)

Besides, stealing movies is like robbing old people, don't your extraneous-advertisement-on-your-DVD-that-you-can't-skip tell you that?

In other words, Congress is at its worst, most authoritarian, corporate pandering, money-grubbing, ignorant self when it comes to regulating online technology.

Digital McCarthyism

We can only hope that as younger generations inherit the reigns of power, that they will have a soft spot for file sharing and be more readily able to see it for what it is. These old fogeys probably don't know how to turn on a computer. Blind to the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Besides, stealing movies is like robbing old people, don't your extraneous-advertisement-on-your-DVD-that-you-can't-skip tell you that?

---

I wouldn't know, I, erm, uh, skip them... I mean, a friend of mine does... yeah...

Quote:

---

The process is called civil asset forfeiture, and typically the owner does not need to be found guilty of a crime for his property to be taken.

---

Oh ****. I really hate those forfeiture laws. 100% with ya on this one Lemur, the DMCA is ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Besides, stealing movies is like robbing old people, don't your extraneous-advertisement-on-your-DVD-that-you-can't-skip tell you that?

---

I thought it was like havin' a go in a bobby's hat:
[obligatory link]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAr7zKxjCDY[/obligatory link]

CR

Ars Technica has their usual excellent analysis.

So, apparently, the backlash was sufficient for Prentice to postpone introducing the bill until late January next year... so we'll see.

In related news on the other side of the border...
What was it that you were asking, Lemur, to revisit the DMCA ? Wish granted!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Congressman Hollywood: It's time to revisit the DMCA

By Nate Anderson | Published: December 13, 2007 - 11:04AM CT
Related Stories

* Sexual orientation questions keep Roommates.com from Safe Harbor berth
* Irony alert: Perfect 10 helps to bolster the Communications Decency Act
* Cuban, EFF lawyer spar over YouTube and the DMCA at EFF Pioneer Awards
* SueTube: sex, copyright, and rock & roll

Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), also known as Congressman Hollywood, is one of the most powerful members of the House when it comes to intellectual property issues, so when he muses aloud about "revisiting" the DMCA, people listen. Unfortunately, Berman wants to reform the DMCA because it doesn't go far enough, and his ideas sound like they're ripped right from the pages of the Big Content playbook.

Berman chairs the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, and this morning oversaw a hearing on the PRO-IP Act, a bill that could boost statutory damages for copyright infringement and create a special IP enforcement office in the executive branch as well as a new IP division at the Department of Justice. Before witness testimony got underway, Berman mused aloud about things the bill did not contain but which he would like to revisit in the future.

Berman believes that the DMCA, in particular, needs reforming, but not in the ways that consumers have clamored for. Instead, the congressman wants to look again at the issue of "safe harbor" provisions currently extended to ISPs for infringing content flowing across their networks. He wants to examine the "effectiveness of takedown notices" under the DMCA, and he'd like to take another look at whether filtering technology has advanced to the point where Congress ought to mandate it in certain situations.

The ideas could not be more pleasing to companies like Viacom, which is currently suing YouTube over the issue of takedown notices, claiming that simply adhering to the DMCA takedown notice system is not good enough. The MPAA, which has been pushing for ISPs to adopt video filtering on their networks, should also be thrilled.

Big Content has been touting fingerprinting and filtering technologies as the solution to the problem of having their copyrighted content posted online. In October, Viacom and a handful of other companies issued a set of principles governing how user-generated video content should be handled. Signatories to the manifesto would be forced to beyond the boundaries of the DMCA—in the same direction Rep. Berman wants the DMCA to go, in fact.

Gutting the Safe Harbor provision of the DMCA, as Berman appears to be advocating, would also provide a massive boost to the rights-holders. Conversely, it would have a chilling effect, not only on the likes of YouTube, but on any site that hosts any sort of user-generated content. The Safe Harbor is arguably one of the very few worthwhile provisions of the DMCA. Rewriting it to favor the interests of Big Content would be a gigantic mistake.

Eric Bangeman contributed to this story.

Oh, you meant in favor of the consumers.... sorry, buddy, no deal. How about in favor of the big business ? It still counts as a change, right ?

Finally, some tiny bit of good news on the U.S. front:

The Department of Justice on Thursday slammed intellectual property legislation that would re-organize its IP enforcement structure, calling it unnecessary and counterproductive to the work it has already accomplished.

"We have a current structure … that works quite effectively," Sigal Mandelker, deputy assistant attorney general, told the House Judiciary subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.

Yay for sanity! Good stuff. Now to shoot down the other craziness, the fed agency, and it's a pretty darn big step forward!

Quote:

---

So you get yet _another_ federal agency, yay for small gov't! A fed agency whose only purpose is to track down those naughty, naughty downloaders - good priorities here!

---

An excellent analysis of the potential results of such an agency can be seen in the last section of
this.

Lol, that was hilarious - thank you, Myrddraal! :2thumbsup:

There's plenty of anti-DMCA support here, and I admit I lean that way too, personally. Let's trot out the Devil's Advocate to consider more angles:

Last summer, here in the backroom, we tried out the idea of a bookclub. A book was voted on and selected that participants would obtain and read, then discuss.

Some readers bought it new, some bought used copies, others found one in their public libraries (in effect, having 'bought' it with their taxes).

No one thought to scan the 300 page book to share it with the dozen or so others for free. Everybody paid, one way or another, for their own copy, although getting it was for a group project.

Why? How is that experience different from downloading a song or movie or game from the 'net?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

There's plenty of anti-DMCA support here, and I admit I lean that way too, personally. Let's trot out the Devil's Advocate to consider more angles:

Last summer, here in the backroom, we tried out the idea of a bookclub. A book was voted on and selected that participants would obtain and read, then discuss.

Some readers bought it new, some bought used copies, others found one in their public libraries (in effect, having 'bought' it with their taxes).

No one thought to scan the 300 page book to share it with the dozen or so others for free. Everybody paid, one way or another, for their own copy, although getting it was for a group project.

Why? How is that experience different from downloading a song or movie or game from the 'net?

---

Well, in reality almost all piracy is a matter of convenience.

People will download mp3s because they want to put music on their iPods; people will download movies because they want to watch the content on their dvd player; and so on.

The key thing here is that all these things are digital. There's no need for conversion, or for someone to move outside their comfort zone in order to make use of the fruits of piracy; instead it's all there right in front of them, ready to use.

By way of contrast, we're all used to reading books on paper. To 'pirate' a book would require it to be scanned (that is, transferred into a digital form), downloaded, and then read on an alien and uncomfortable medium (a computer monitor).

Compare this to a piece of music, which requires next to no effort to procure, and is convenient to use, and you can pretty clearly see that there's a huge difference in the amount of effort required to make use of the material, and that that's an important factor in the different rates of piracy for each form of content...

Besides, a book is tangible. It is intrinsically a lot harder to justify the amount of money that the various industry groups want to charge the consumer for what is essentially a collection of bytes - sorry, the right to use them :grin2: - than it is for a bound collection of paper that you can hold, touch, and ultimately attribute a value to.

So the arguments for digital piracy are

-it's easy and convenient to copy
-everyone does it
-publishers make undeserved profit from their product

I think it's essentially the last point and then I know people who just think "Why pay when you can get it for free?" Guess the only reason they don't steal in stores (or maybe they do that as well) is because the chance to get caught is higher. I was even called stupid by someone when I told him that I do not pirate games or movies and I know someone else who has a hobby of hacking servers of companies, unis etc to enable others to upload pirated movies there, I guess it only stops being fun when your job is to maintain/repair the server or when you make money from selling something digital. :shrug:
I do think that some prices are quite high but in that case I simply refrain from buying the software/music instead of obtaining it illegally because "I wouldn't have bought it anyway", the thing about testing games is a bit shady and depends a lot on the honesty of the person, personally I haven't bought a few games simply because there was no demo to test them.

I think it's more like:

Reason:
-it's easy and convenient to copy
Moral Excuses:
-everyone does it
-publishers make undeserved profit from their product


I don't think many people feel strongly that they should have a right to free music, but it's much easier to download than to go and buy a CD. It's also easier to download off a free site than one where you have to register and register bank details.

That said, I think that had iTunes and other online music distrubution come into play at an earlier stage, then more people today would be using iTunes and less people piracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

I think it's more like:

Reason:
-it's easy and convenient to copy
Moral Excuses:
-everyone does it
-publishers make undeserved profit from their product


I don't think many people feel strongly that they should have a right to free music, but it's much easier to download than to go and buy a CD. It's also easier to download off a free site than one where you have to register and register bank details.

That said, I think that had iTunes and other online music distrubution come into play at an earlier stage, then more people today would be using iTunes and less people piracy.

---

Also iTunes doesn't let you put your iTunes Music Store music on more than five computers. Which for me isn't a major problem yet, but eventually it could be. I think if you buy music from iTunes you should be allowed to do what you want with it, there shouldn't be a ton of restrictions on how you can use it. And at only 99 cents a song here in the US it's not like they're charging an arm and a leg for the music, though I bet they could cut the prices and still make a profit.

I just think if iTunes and other legal alternatives would make the music a bit easier to use and remove some of the restrictions on what you can do with the music piracy would drop off a bit, and the feds definitely shouldn't be involved in pursuing pirates, other than the swashbuckling type, because it's the record companies' problem and the record companies shouldn't be able to fine people such insane sums either.

I have no sympathy for the movie industry nor the record industry. They put out lousy movies and records, charge top dollar for everything, create hype upon hype, pump themselves up endlessly like home run hitters on steroids, have no social conscience whatsoever, and then cry like starving orphans when Joe Teenager watches Die Hard 4 on his computer screen in his basement instead of spending $25+ on the DVD. To hell with them.

Sure it's wrong to steal movies, but not nearly as wrong as a million other illegalities and inequities the government and police refuse to deal with. The only reason these laws see so much government action is because the people being ripped off are filthy stinking rich. If it was poor people being robbed, nobody would care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

Also iTunes doesn't let you put your iTunes Music Store music on more than five computers.

---

Yeah, this kept my music consumption down for a long time. I hate the idea that I might forget to "deactivate" a device and run out of my permitted five devices. Knowing this kept my purchasing very, very light.

What's changed is the whole "iTunes plus" thingmajig, where certain labels are offering 256k un-DRM'd tracks. This means that when I buy it, I own it, and no amount of bone-headedness on my part will ever mean I can't play it. This has caused me to start buying music again.

It really wasn't a great sacrifice to not buy music for a few years. But then again I'm an older lemur, I already have a considerable music collection, etc. It would be much harder on a young'un.

As for moral "justifications" for piracy, I'm not sure any of them are legitimate. The correct thing to do when you loathe an industry's practices is to boycott them until they come to their senses. Remember, you vote with your dollars. It isn't enough to withhold them from those who practice evil; we must also reward those who chose the path of righteousness.

I usually bought a CD then copied it to the HDD with WMP, worked fine so far. But then I only have about 20 music CDs or so. :sweatdrop:
And yes, that's about my entire music collection, add to that some 6 movie DVDs and the rest of my CD and DVD collection are only computer games.
Well, it's all about value/money. :shrug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Yeah, this kept my music consumption down for a long time. I hate the idea that I might forget to "deactivate" a device and run out of my permitted five devices. Knowing this kept my purchasing very, very light.

What's changed is the whole "iTunes plus" thingmajig, where certain labels are offering 256k un-DRM'd tracks. This means that when I buy it, I own it, and no amount of bone-headedness on my part will ever mean I can't play it. This has caused me to start buying music again.

It really wasn't a great sacrifice to not buy music for a few years. But then again I'm an older lemur, I already have a considerable music collection, etc. It would be much harder on a young'un.

As for moral "justifications" for piracy, I'm not sure any of them are legitimate. The correct thing to do when you loathe an industry's practices is to boycott them until they come to their senses. Remember, you vote with your dollars. It isn't enough to withhold them from those who practice evil; we must also reward those who chose the path of righteousness.

---

Yeah....Partly because of the cost of music and iTunes' craziness I rarely buy music unless I "need it" or happen to get an iTunes gift certificate from someone. In the past year I've probably bought a couple of Rammstein CD's and some other random German music and that's it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Last summer, here in the backroom, we tried out the idea of a bookclub. A book was voted on and selected that participants would obtain and read, then discuss.

Some readers bought it new, some bought used copies, others found one in their public libraries (in effect, having 'bought' it with their taxes).

No one thought to scan the 300 page book to share it with the dozen or so others for free. Everybody paid, one way or another, for their own copy, although getting it was for a group project.

Why? How is that experience different from downloading a song or movie or game from the 'net?

---

Well, as I said in another thread, when I buy a book, I am not giving Bantam or Doubelday or Random House the right to scan my house for a photocopier and lock my front door if they find evidence of toner. Neither can they reclaim the book or disable the book if they think I might be reading chapters to my brother on the phone. The relationship of consumer rights to copyright holder rights are much more settled when it comes to books. (Also note that some venturesome authors are releasing books under the creative commons.)

More importantly, the music labels are addicted to a ridiculous pricing structure. As I pointed out to a musician friend, I can buy the DVD of Gladiator for half of what the soundtrack costs. Note that a dual-layer DVD contains 8.5 gigs of data, as opposed to 700 megs on a CD. So I should pay more for a disc that contains 1/12th of the entertainment data?

Frankly, the music labels just need to wither and die. It's not as though people will stop making music, or consuming music. But the labels are a hinderance to the artist, a bane to the consumer, and a roadblock to innovation. The sooner they go bankrupt the better.