PRO-IP bill signed into law

[Louis VI the Fat]

They're fighting a lost war. And one shouldn't enter a war that's lost.

The law has many aspects, but I'll focus on one, file sharing. It is no longer stoppable. Here you go, think of it what you must: I've downloaded thousands of illegal copies of music and movies this year. Not because I feel entitled to it. Not because I couldn't afford to rent DVD's and buy CD's. But simply...because I can. And because everybody does it. And because this is how people listen to music nowadays, and watch movies.

My illegal files haven't replaced CD's and DVD's, they've done much more than that: they replaced radio and television.
I've got five thousand files on my IPod and computer that function as a radio. MTV? I watch more music videos on YouTube. Movies I don't watch on television, but at my own leisurly pace after I downloaded them.
Yet radio, television and MTV all managed, and manage, to make a living from broadcasting content free of charge, instead of from selling hard copies.

So if they ever want to make a profit from the time I spend listening to music and watching movies, they'll have to innovate and figure out a way. It's like that.
Old times won't return. I mean, a fourteen year old doesn't even know what a compact disc is anymore. It's a museumpiece to them. The thought that people should pay for music is as alien to them as the thought that I should pay to walk in the park.

[Strike For The South]

They're fighting a lost war. And one shouldn't enter a war that's lost.

The law has many aspects, but I'll focus on one, file sharing. It is no longer stoppable. Here you go, think of it what you must: I've downloaded thousands of illegal copies of music and movies this year. Not because I feel entitled to it. Not because I couldn't afford to rent DVD's and buy CD's. But simply...because I can. And because everybody does it. And because this is how people listen to music nowadays, and watch movies.

My illegal files haven't replaced CD's and DVD's, they've done much more than that: they replaced radio and television.
I've got five thousand files on my IPod and computer that function as a radio. MTV? I watch more music videos on YouTube. Movies I don't watch on television, but at my own leisurly pace after I downloaded them.
Yet radio, television and MTV all managed, and manage, to make a living from broadcasting content, instead of from selling hard copies.

So if they ever want to make a profit from the time I spend listening to music and watching movies, they'll have to innovate and figure out a way. It's like that.
Old times won't return. I mean, a fourteen year old doesn't even know what a compact disc is anymore. It's a museumpiece to them. The thought that people should pay for music is as alien to them as the thought that I should pay to walk in the park.

QFT

[Husar]

If that were the case then I wonder where they are supposed to get the money for a 100,000,000$ movie production from? Or does everybody prefer amateur short films?

It's kind of hard to run a business without any income, it's even harder to sustain a family without any income, I suggest you try it. Of course there are other jobs those people could pursue, like washing dishes, and then everybody could watch them do that for free.

[TevashSzat]

If that were the case then I wonder where they are supposed to get the money for a 100,000,000$ movie production from? Or does everybody prefer amateur short films?

It's kind of hard to run a business without any income, it's even harder to sustain a family without any income, I suggest you try it. Of course there are other jobs those people could pursue, like washing dishes, and then everybody could watch them do that for free.

Well, my view of piracy is as follows:

The vast majority of pirates are those who either don't have enough money to buy games or want to just try out games that they would have normally never bought.

Now in both situations, the industry would have never seen the people's money. True, there are a minorty of the piracy population, i think, who never buy games, rent DVDs, go to the theaters, ect... but they are not the biggest.

In fact, the pirates are being exposed to new things that they may have gotten access to otherwise. If they truly like whatever product they pirated, the odds are that they would become a fan of the product and actually spend money to get it.

I think piracy is being used as a scapegoat for the declining music industry and what not. The fact is the vast majority of people have no idea how to use torrents and such to get pirated items. So, the general loss in revenue has alot more to do with the industry's declining standards or products rather than the horrible piracy that apparently everyone and their mother uses.

The thing is that great movie for the foreseeable future will always make money. Look at the Dark Knight, it has made hundreds of millions and has paid its 80 million dollar budget (iirc) many times over. I don't see anyone complaining how low the box office numbers for it was. Instead, the complaining and whining only comes after some movie or computer game does below exception. Of course, there is no chance that your product may be faulty, it must be everyone else's fault

[Louis VI the Fat]

If that were the case then I wonder where they are supposed to get the money for a 100,000,000$ movie production from?

They get the money from suckers like y ...erm...I mean, they need to adapt or die. To devise new strategies.

We should remember that intellectual property only came into full being when technological breakthrough made perfect reproduction of art possible.

In the 19th century, you went to a live concert to hear music. Only the invention of the grammophone created the music industry, and with it the possibility of making money from music through reproduction.
Likewise, only the possibility to reproduce visual art - whether through reproduction of posters, photographs or the moving image - meant that intellectual property needed to be protected. Previoulsy, once sold, an image was sold and with it all the rights resting on it. Before the 20th century, if you could paint a good copy of a famous painting, then good for you, you were well within your rights. Only the possibility of mechanical, perfect reproduction created the need for intellectual property protection.

Intellectual property rights to protect against reproduction is a distinctly twentienth century legal concept, tied to advances in mechanical reproduction. Currently, we are witnessing a new technological breakthrough. An advancement in digital reproduction. Which makes reproduction instantaneous, global, and, most importantly, with zero cost. And we are only at the beginning...
So not only does industry need to innovate, so too must our legal concepts progress, just like they did during the last century.

In this respect, this law is reactionary. And stultifying for enterprise. It doesn't protect American industry, it is detrimental to it, by protected vested industry at the expense of innovation. This law belongs to the laws of Ming China or the guilds of Europe. Desperatley clinging on to old ways by means of ever increasing suppression is decidedly un-American.


*now you'll need to excuse me. Dark Knight just arrived on my hard drive.*

[PanzerJaeger]

Had no idea about this... thanks Xiahou.

Louis has it.

[Koga No Goshi]

I have a few very short points that I think Strike and others may appreciate.

1. Who cares, everyone with any semblance of technological know-how will still occasionally pirate music and movies.

2. The record industries and such can take as many fascist temper tantrum crackdowns as they want, but they can't resist the forward momentum of technology.

3. "most of us" were never the problem anyway. I do download a few songs when i-tunes is being a bastard and doesn't carry a good enough variety of stuff, or doesn't have what I want, and I will occasionally download movies I'm dying to see if they're not released in the U.S. yet-- but if I'm dying to see it, I'm pretty much guaranteed to buy it when it comes out, so I don't feel guilty. The real problem is people sitting in their dorm room downloading every single episode of every single television, cable and anime show ever written, produced and televised, plus every variant of every soundtrack and arrangement of instrumental music ever, just "because." And people in third world countries downloading the movies from someone's cellphone computer and selling them for $2 out of the back of a motorcycle on the street.

[Lemur]

Who cares, everyone with any semblance of technological know-how will still occasionally pirate music and movies.

I'm not concerned about the consumer, I'm worried about the law. Passing stupid laws such as PRO-IP reduces the respect people have for our legal framework. IF every kid you know is violating a supposedly serious law that has its own Czar ... ye gods, didn't we do enough of this with the War on Drugs? How absurd do we want to make our legal system?

Yeah, I heard this news in the car today. And I didn't crash or anything.

[Husar]

And because everybody does it. And because this is how people listen to music nowadays, and watch movies. [...] Old times won't return. I mean, a fourteen year old doesn't even know what a compact disc is anymore. It's a museumpiece to them. The thought that people should pay for music is as alien to them as the thought that I should pay to walk in the park.

vs.

I think piracy is being used as a scapegoat for the declining music industry and what not. The fact is the vast majority of people have no idea how to use torrents and such to get pirated items. So, the general loss in revenue has alot more to do with the industry's declining standards or products rather than the horrible piracy that apparently everyone and their mother uses.

If people want to "unite for piracy", maybe having a common stance on the subject wouldn't hurt...

Of course, there is no chance that your product may be faulty, it must be everyone else's fault

That's a good point but it's no excuse for piracy either.

They get the money from suckers like y ...erm...I mean, they need to adapt or die.

If you think that is a sound thing to say then I guess holding a shotgun to the head of a six years old girl and telling her she has five seconds to adapt or die is a good thing to do as well because the overall concept is the same.

Old times won't return.

We should remember that intellectual property only came into full being when technological breakthrough made perfect reproduction of art possible.

In the 19th century, you went to a live concert to hear music. Only the invention of the grammophone created the music industry, and with it the possibility of making money from music through reproduction.

So basically they should die because of the progress they made and their own progress is at fault?
Actually, returning to old times would be the innovative way you're asking for to deal with the situation, musicians could only do live concerts, nothing else, then people could pay 100$ entrance or forget to hear from that person ever again, save some really bad, cellphone-recorded videos on youtube that wouldn't even come close to the quality most people expect.

Intellectual property rights to protect against reproduction is a distinctly twentienth century legal concept, tied to advances in mechanical reproduction. Currently, we are witnessing a new technological breakthrough. An advancement in digital reproduction. Which makes reproduction instantaneous, global, and, most importantly, with zero cost. And we are only at the beginning...
So not only does industry need to innovate, so too must our legal concepts progress, just like they did during the last century.

So how can you get better than instantaneous global reproduction at zero cost? Our legal concepts progressing is what this thread is about, if the pirates put an instantaneous, global zero cost to the industry's head, the industry will put a legal, policeman, really-high-fine-and-ceasure-of-property-due-to-total-observation gun to everybody else's head. The war was fine with everyone as long as the pirates were winning but now that the record industry adapts and the free hunting is in trouble, people start whining about oppression, only oppressing the industry is fine. Talk about double standards.
FYI, I'm not saying their principles are fine but the capitalist way to fight that is don't buy, not put a proverbial gun to their head and laugh about them, violence only causes a spiral of violence and that's what we have about this issue now, one strikes and the other strikes back even harder, it often goes both ways, deal with it.

In this respect, this law is reactionary. And stultifying for enterprise. It doesn't protect American industry, it is detrimental to it, by protected vested industry at the expense of innovation. This law belongs to the laws of Ming China or the guilds of Europe. Desperatley clinging on to old ways by means of ever increasing suppression is decidedly un-American.

Nice try, so making people pay for products is reactionary now.
Maybe it's you who has to stop seeing music and movies as art and start seeing them as products who are sold to make money, get with the times already and stop being reactionary, the days of free art, of artists roaming the countryside, eating from appletrees and residing in the princess's quarters for a while are over. The new way, the American way, is capitalism and that means making money with what you created using your mind. And if anyone thinks he can walk all over your property, you have every right to kill them, it's the texan american way.

[KukriKhan]

It's theft. Amplified by extortion, in the second case.

By pirates/downloaders, AND now by over-reaching government regulation.

"You stole from me, so with Sam over there with the gun, watching, I'm taking 4,000 times the value of your theft to satify your debt to me."

The mafia would be so proud.

[King Henry V]

Personally, I don't see many of the big singers starving in the gutter, because they still make loads of dosh out of concerts, which was how it was before and how it should be. Touring means them doing a semblance of hard work, whereas I find the idea of spending a couple of hours in the recording studio, and then making millions to be absolutely absurd. Releasing songs on CD and on the internet will just have to become another marketing tool.

As for the film industry losing money, all that I can say is about time too. For years they have been pumping out the most mindless drivel imaginable, with very few new, fresh ideas coming to the fore. People would pay to watch it before because there was little else to see and cinema tickets weren't so abominably expensive. Now, quite rightly, they aren't paying anything to watch it. If these films don't make any money, then the industry will just have to stop making them, and the ham actors in them will just have to spend a few more months a year doing nothing and sell off the beach side villa in Thailand.
As with many struggling industries, Hollywood will have to focus on quality rather than quantity.

[Ironside]

If you think that is a sound thing to say then I guess holding a shotgun to the head of a six years old girl and telling her she has five seconds to adapt or die is a good thing to do as well because the overall concept is the same.

It's better if the anology is more correct, this has been a trend for more than one and a half decade. Hardly a sudden event.

Second, all economic systems does contain a certain adapt or die if they're supposed to be effective.

Third, while most people agree that the musicians should get paid for thier job, they do find that the distributor taking 92% of the money (The current ratio on i-Tunes) is somewhat suspiciously close to leeching. Or to put it this way, you pay for 12,5 albums while buying one.

By comperation, one suggestion in Sweden (currently investigated) has been that you pay a monthly fee for free download (and no wierd files you "rent" instead of own). Even with 50% of administration costs, the average user would have to be above 30 songs a month for this to not be profitable for the artists, while you as a buyer would need to be below half an album a month to pay more.

So basically they should die because of the progress they made and their own progress is at fault?
Actually, returning to old times would be the innovative way you're asking for to deal with the situation, musicians could only do live concerts, nothing else, then people could pay 100$ entrance or forget to hear from that person ever again, save some really bad, cellphone-recorded videos on youtube that wouldn't even come close to the quality most people expect.

And as mentioned above, the musicians would probably benefit greatly on it... There's a middle hand and the hands that rips you off.

So how can you get better than instantaneous global reproduction at zero cost?

They're not competing against free, they're competing against a cheaper, better and easier to access product. If it was simply the price, most would pay.
Would you go to a place with lousy, expensive food that's takes an hour to reach?

Our legal concepts progressing is what this thread is about, if the pirates put an instantaneous, global zero cost to the industry's head, the industry will put a legal, policeman, really-high-fine-and-ceasure-of-property-due-to-total-observation gun to everybody else's head. The war was fine with everyone as long as the pirates were winning but now that the record industry adapts and the free hunting is in trouble, people start whining about oppression, only oppressing the industry is fine. Talk about double standards.

It's not about our legal concepts progressing, if anything it's about them going backwards. The copywright concept isn't really adapted for the digital world. Or to put it differently, about the entire population with internet has done multiple copywright breaches and that's without talking about downloading.

FYI, I'm not saying their principles are fine but the capitalist way to fight that is don't buy, not put a proverbial gun to their head and laugh about them, violence only causes a spiral of violence and that's what we have about this issue now, one strikes and the other strikes back even harder, it often goes both ways, deal with it.

Wouldn't not buying music from music companies cause the artists to search for other ways to find thier costumers?

Nice try, so making people pay for products is reactionary now.
Maybe it's you who has to stop seeing music and movies as art and start seeing them as products who are sold to make money, get with the times already and stop being reactionary, the days of free art, of artists roaming the countryside, eating from appletrees and residing in the princess's quarters for a while are over. The new way, the American way, is capitalism and that means making money with what you created using your mind. And if anyone thinks he can walk all over your property, you have every right to kill them, it's the texan american way.

By the capitalistic way, you should find a way to cut the middle hand when he's uneeded, so music companies are free for all in the hunting season atm.

[TevashSzat]

vs.

If people want to "unite for piracy", maybe having a common stance on the subject wouldn't hurt...

Well, my statement was in regards to the general public including the 80 year old seniles who don't have a computer. If you look at the younger population, however, it will be much higher. I doubt that it is as high as Louis is making it seems, but the percentage of people who have pirated something at least once is unbelievably high

That's a good point but it's no excuse for piracy either.

The thing is, what would be an otherwise good response to such decrease in quality?

These company executives can care less about emails or letters written to them. The only thing that they listen to is money and so when people are finally getting them where it hurts, they're just trying stave off the inevitable rather than try to revamp the products they sell.

If you think that is a sound thing to say then I guess holding a shotgun to the head of a six years old girl and telling her she has five seconds to adapt or die is a good thing to do as well because the overall concept is the same.

Well....isn't that how a capitalistic system works? You either adapt and be a great company or you don't and you end up broke (well....from the bailouts happening recently, its probably more likely that you would receive a couple hundred billion dollars for not conducting business smartly...)

So basically they should die because of the progress they made and their own progress is at fault?

No, they're dieing because the whole world around them is progressing and they're desperately trying to cling on to old business strategies which do not work in the 21st century

[Husar]

Would you go to a place with lousy, expensive food that's takes an hour to reach?

No, I would try to sneak in and steal their lousy food.
Seriously, since you noticed my analogy was bad, you could at least have tried to come up with a better one yourself here.

It's not about our legal concepts progressing, if anything it's about them going backwards. The copywright concept isn't really adapted for the digital world. Or to put it differently, about the entire population with internet has done multiple copywright breaches and that's without talking about downloading.

So the best way to deal with it is lynch-justice and breaking the laws?

Wouldn't not buying music from music companies cause the artists to search for other ways to find thier costumers?

Indeed, but how does piracy help with that?
It only adds a criminal component to a good cause. Kind of like the usual "the end justifies the means", the kind of excuse some really evil people in movies use.

The thing is, what would be an otherwise good response to such decrease in quality?

These company executives can care less about emails or letters written to them. The only thing that they listen to is money and so when people are finally getting them where it hurts, they're just trying stave off the inevitable rather than try to revamp the products they sell.

That depends, a lot of letters can make them change their minds if they know that customers will stop buying their products.
The real problem is that most customers are weaklings, they want to make a point but they want to the product anyway so they get it illegally or buy it despite the problems they have with it.
If they really had a problem with the product they should be hard and not get it at all, that way the publishers will also see that the will to fight their oppressive methods is stronger than the need to play a game or listen to that music. But as it is, people end up looking like crack addicts who hate drug lords but want their crack anyway.

That's just weak and not the right way.

Well....isn't that how a capitalistic system works? You either adapt and be a great company or you don't and you end up broke (well....from the bailouts happening recently, its probably more likely that you would receive a couple hundred billion dollars for not conducting business smartly...)

Yes, and this law is how a society works, if you break it, you will get fined/arrested or you adapt and live your life without breaking it, using legal means to shape your world. If that had been done by people, this law had never ever even been considered.

No, they're dieing because the whole world around them is progressing and they're desperately trying to cling on to old business strategies which do not work in the 21st century

And their "customers" are desperately trying to break the law and make a point that could easily be made without breaking the law.