PRO-IP bill signed into law

[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.

[Husar]

If it's such drivel, why do people use criminal means to watch it?

[King Henry V]

Because the vast majority of the population is quite happy to watch drivel. Just switch on your television set and see the endless hours of reality TV and "World's Most Amazing Videos". I'm just happy that the industry profits less from such limp-minded output.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The stockmarket is flaming out, we're not much closer to exiting Iraq, the debt is increasing exponentially, and the government won't even let us listen to some tunes. <_<

[ICantSpellDawg]

Everything immaterial should be pirated. Digital piracy is the way of the future and hurts no one. I don't go to movie theaters any less often or buy any fewer cds than I would otherwise. If anything I buy a couple more cds than I would otherwise because of pirated music that I got to try for free.

My r4ds has utterly eliminated nintendo DS games from my purchasing queue, though. I wouldn't be buying games anyway, except for the odd pokemon game that I will buy for myself just to support pokemon.

[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.

[Ironside]

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.

Nah, not really. The pirated stuff would be from a worse stylish resturant (but with better reputation), but with better prices, better food (no DRM) and within a 10 min walk. And it was also established earlier. The downside is that it has employed some illegal immigrants.

Had it only been about prices, then the development would've been quite different.

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

A law that incriminates about the entire population is usually a stupid law, so in a way, it's better as it draws more attention. It's called civil dissent.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yeah, yeah this isn't really civil dissent (and it isn't their intention), but there's cases where going outside the law is better than following it.

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.

Because it's by far the strongest means to do it. It is also depending on how you view it. This is more a consequence of a flawed market that gained some means to correct itself. Can you give a legal mean to keep the artists funded, while breaking the way the record companies keeps the market?

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.

If the world starves out the record companies druglords that controls the market to bring them down, how would the poor artists cocaine growers fare?

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.

There's a point where adapting to the law is worse for society than breaking it.

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

And how is this point easily made legally, without hurting the artists?


Sure, todays market is unstable and not yet adapted to this new digital world, but what the record companies tries to do is to put the genie back into the bottle, so they can return to thier golden age, instead of adapting. And the effect becomes that it will prolong the time the buissness will stabilise and the costumer, artist (and distributor) will find a level that's acceptable.

[Husar]

Because it's by far the strongest means to do it. It is also depending on how you view it. This is more a consequence of a flawed market that gained some means to correct itself. Can you give a legal mean to keep the artists funded, while breaking the way the record companies keeps the market?

So in what way does piracy keep the artists funded?

As for the rest of your post and breaking the law for the better of society, I'm sure you will soon run around destroying CCTV cameras and x-ray screens on airports since surely privacy and freedom are more important to you than mere entertainment, or did I get your priorities wrong there?

[Xiahou]

It's really simple. Content creators have a right to be compensated for their works. But, consumers also have a right to expect a quality product in return for their purchase.

For me, the trouble begins when content is loaded with such so many draconian protections that the product becomes inferior to hacked off pirated versions. That's going about it in the completely wrong way. People should get rewarded with value for buying something instead of pirating. As it is now, consumers are often punished with onerous restrictions placed on them that they wouldn't have to deal with had they got a pirated version. That's an insane business model and I feel no sympathy for the problems it creates.

Really though, DRM and piracy are not specifically what this thread is about. It is about specific legislation, signed into law, that strips citizens of previously enjoyed rights for the benefit of the "big content" lobby.

[Husar]

Really though, DRM and piracy are not specifically what this thread is about. It is about specific legislation, signed into law, that strips citizens of previously enjoyed rights for the benefit of the "big content" lobby.

So i can expect to see you fight for your rights at the airport as well?