|
|
|
1 - Arguments of economy and convenience, for using analogue
information (eg magazines, magnetic audio tapes) where a digital
alternative is available, are consistenly shrinking or disappearing.
Soon the only reasons left will be traditional aesthetics. Eg five
years from now: "But I *like* books, I don't care that electronic paper
(look it up if you don't know) is just as clear, is lighter, cheaper,
and easier to reuse, I like the smell of real paper".
2 - Forms of media that exist only in analogue form (for practical
use), are rapidly disappearing. Movies and television stations are, in
the last few years, some of the most popular forms of digital media.
Both in legal and illegal forms of distribution. But of course there's
also newspapers, radio stations, books, magazines, catalogues, comics,
etc, that have had popular digital equivalents, for many years.
3 - All forms of digital media are gradually converging to a single
delivery mechanism: The internet. Whether it be by desktop computers,
laptops with wireless internet, or mobile phones on 3G networks, almost
anything can be got on the internet, from almost anywhere. This is only
going to increase, and indeed accelerate.
4 - No form of digital copy-protection has ever been crack-proof, and
there is no reason to assume they ever will. Some have been as simple
as scribbling some pen on the underside of a CD, none are more
complicated than putting the right code into a common processor chip
and attaching it to the device in question.
5 - Once the crack (either in hardware or software form) has been made,
it is cheap and easy to propogate this crack to other users of the same
device or media, and none of the actual components used are illegal
(although the final product may be, in theory).
With these five reasons combined, it doesn't matter how many lawyers
large corporations employ, or how many politicans think it should
continue. When a law that affects everybody as much as copyright law,
becomes impossible to police, then it ceases to be a law. First in
practice then on paper. There is no possible way for copyright to last
more than another decade.
Still, many large organisations try to keep this dying old man alive.
It must be a great time to be a copyright lawyer (enjoy it while it
lasts).
|
| |
| |
However, the policy behind copyright is still valid. ie: rewarding
innovation. What do you suppose will replace it? I see it as a simple
endlessly escalating "arms race" of copyright protection schemes which are
then defeated, more copyright protection schemes, etc.
Let's face it, the average person doesn't have access to cracked stuff.
While WE are all internet savvy, the AVERAGE person doesn't have the
knowledge or the interest to use P2P. The average person doesn't know the
warez web sites or where to search for alternative means of getting stuff.
The average person simply pays for it. A friend of mine got a chip for his
Playstation 2 to allow it to play copied games. He opened up the machine
and soldered it in. How many people can do that?
So in general I'd say that copyright protection works in general.
1 - Arguments of economy and convenience, for using analogue
information (eg magazines, magnetic audio tapes) where a digital
alternative is available, are consistenly shrinking or disappearing.
Soon the only reasons left will be traditional aesthetics. Eg five
years from now: "But I *like* books, I don't care that electronic paper
(look it up if you don't know) is just as clear, is lighter, cheaper,
and easier to reuse, I like the smell of real paper".
2 - Forms of media that exist only in analogue form (for practical
use), are rapidly disappearing. Movies and television stations are, in
the last few years, some of the most popular forms of digital media.
Both in legal and illegal forms of distribution. But of course there's
also newspapers, radio stations, books, magazines, catalogues, comics,
etc, that have had popular digital equivalents, for many years.
3 - All forms of digital media are gradually converging to a single
delivery mechanism: The internet. Whether it be by desktop computers,
laptops with wireless internet, or mobile phones on 3G networks, almost
anything can be got on the internet, from almost anywhere. This is only
going to increase, and indeed accelerate.
4 - No form of digital copy-protection has ever been crack-proof, and
there is no reason to assume they ever will. Some have been as simple
as scribbling some pen on the underside of a CD, none are more
complicated than putting the right code into a common processor chip
and attaching it to the device in question.
5 - Once the crack (either in hardware or software form) has been made,
it is cheap and easy to propogate this crack to other users of the same
device or media, and none of the actual components used are illegal
(although the final product may be, in theory).
With these five reasons combined, it doesn't matter how many lawyers
large corporations employ, or how many politicans think it should
continue. When a law that affects everybody as much as copyright law,
becomes impossible to police, then it ceases to be a law. First in
practice then on paper. There is no possible way for copyright to last
more than another decade.
Still, many large organisations try to keep this dying old man alive.
It must be a great time to be a copyright lawyer (enjoy it while it
lasts).
|
| |
| |
Falky foo wrote:
However, the policy behind copyright is still valid. ie: rewarding
innovation. What do you suppose will replace it?
It was not invented to reward people because they deserve it, it was
invented so that content would be created and released into society,
for the good of society, when the means of doing so were far more
expensive and rare (fewer literate people, more expensive paper,
typewriters, printing presses, research was far more expensive). The
intellectual work still takes time and effort, but for the same reasons
copyright is becoming less enforcable, it is becoming less necessary.
It won't be replaced by any equivalent, it will just no longer be
needed, its time is up.
I see it as a simple
endlessly escalating "arms race" of copyright protection schemes
which are
then defeated, more copyright protection schemes, etc.
The arms race analogy is flawed in this case, because the two sides are
no equal in terms of the time or money costs. Protection schemes (such
as encryption) are an additional, artifical layer, they need to have
extra hardware to decode the stuff so you can even use it (eg watch
it), then another layer again so you can't copy what you see. You then
need to collude with industry partners, to come up with standard means
of delivery so people don't need 100 different players to watch movies
from different companies, and you need to distribute things on physical
media because that's another layer of difficulty in accessing or
copying the stuff. Cracking, on the other hand, is in most cases a
software solution that one person can figure out, then distribute
effectively for free, and almost instantly, to the whole world.
Also with individual media, once the song or movie or book is put in a
non-protected format, the cost of distributing it is almost negligible,
especially since no physical media needs to change hands (and again
bandwidth just keeps getting cheaper even as demand increases).
What is your observation: Would you say means of copying are getting
cheaper or more expensive? Are they getting easier or more difficult?
What about means of policing people's copying, and enforcing copyright
laws? Would you say that's getting easier or harder? Cheaper or dearer?
Let's face it, the average person doesn't have access to cracked
stuff.
Correct, but they are teaching internet skills in primary schools now.
There is no major monetary or technological barrier in the first world
(and those that exist are rapidly shrinking), it's just a question of
whether you know how to get it, and as that increases so will the
actual level of cracked content, until it's not worth your time or
money to even try to encrypt/protect the stuff in the first place, if
it's indended for mass distribution (secure, private communication is
another topic altogether).
While WE are all internet savvy, the AVERAGE person doesn't have the
knowledge or the interest to use P2P. The average person doesn't
know the
warez web sites or where to search for alternative means of getting
stuff.
The average person simply pays for it. A friend of mine got a chip
for his
Playstation 2 to allow it to play copied games. He opened up the
machine
and soldered it in. How many people can do that?
At what's pretty much the most expensive end of the illegal copying
market, anyone with a couple of hundred bucks can get their x-box
modded, and a new hard drive, after which they can store tv shows,
games and movies that would have cost them thousands of dollars to
purchase in the current legal fashion, and which cost them maybe 50
bucks in rental fees once it's modded.
So in general I'd say that copyright protection works in general.
I look around and see death throes.
|
| |
| |
On 4 Jan 2005 20:17:18 -0800, "democratix" <demokratix@yahoo.com>
wrote:
1 - Arguments of economy and convenience, for using analogue
information (eg magazines, magnetic audio tapes) where a digital
alternative is available, are consistenly shrinking or disappearing.
Soon the only reasons left will be traditional aesthetics. Eg five
years from now: "But I *like* books, I don't care that electronic paper
(look it up if you don't know) is just as clear, is lighter, cheaper,
and easier to reuse, I like the smell of real paper".
2 - Forms of media that exist only in analogue form (for practical
use), are rapidly disappearing. Movies and television stations are, in
the last few years, some of the most popular forms of digital media.
Both in legal and illegal forms of distribution. But of course there's
also newspapers, radio stations, books, magazines, catalogues, comics,
etc, that have had popular digital equivalents, for many years.
3 - All forms of digital media are gradually converging to a single
delivery mechanism: The internet. Whether it be by desktop computers,
laptops with wireless internet, or mobile phones on 3G networks, almost
anything can be got on the internet, from almost anywhere. This is only
going to increase, and indeed accelerate.
4 - No form of digital copy-protection has ever been crack-proof, and
there is no reason to assume they ever will. Some have been as simple
as scribbling some pen on the underside of a CD, none are more
complicated than putting the right code into a common processor chip
and attaching it to the device in question.
5 - Once the crack (either in hardware or software form) has been made,
it is cheap and easy to propogate this crack to other users of the same
device or media, and none of the actual components used are illegal
(although the final product may be, in theory).
With these five reasons combined, it doesn't matter how many lawyers
large corporations employ, or how many politicans think it should
continue. When a law that affects everybody as much as copyright law,
becomes impossible to police, then it ceases to be a law. First in
practice then on paper. There is no possible way for copyright to last
more than another decade.
Still, many large organisations try to keep this dying old man alive.
It must be a great time to be a copyright lawyer (enjoy it while it
lasts).
You statements argue against the mechanically forced
copyright enforcement, such as used by the music industry,
but does not mean the death of copyright or the principles
behind it. What we should see happening is a change in how
copyright is exercised, enforced and managed; this is happening
in some areas but not others. Time will see all change to a
more reasonable copyright control process that will rest on
good will, faith, and court orders for enforcement. This does
already happen in some areas but not all.
If I can legally get a download copy of the latest film for
$5.00 off the net, why would I bother trying to get a pirate
copy? In such a case the producer would get the whole $5
per copy and not have to share it with two dozen middlemen.
Some musicians are doing this and doing well some are not,
this is the way of the future; lower charges and easier access.
Deadly Ernest
@bywater.net.au
(my new keyboard, with small keys,
accepts full responsibility for all
typographical and spelling errors)
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 06:39:32 GMT, "Falky foo"
<falkyfoo@bonksbcglobal.net> wrote:
the AVERAGE person doesn't have the
knowledge or the interest to use P2P. The average person doesn't know the
warez web sites or where to search for alternative means of getting stuff.
The average person simply pays for it. A friend of mine got a chip for his
Playstation 2 to allow it to play copied games. He opened up the machine
and soldered it in. How many people can do that?
but how long do you think that will last?
|
| |
| |
As far ac popyrights. Years ago, I sant with a tape recorder and a
sterio. I coppied music because I didn't have the money to buy tapes
and records. Later on, I didn't know who wrote a song to go buy it.
Also why spend so much money to get one good song? The record industry
is considerbly over paid. They are a recent thing. Before people just
played music. Some people got fameous like Elvis and the Beatles and
it was more about who was there siniging the song than the song. In
the past everyone sung everyone elses songs. I hope this copying will
take a great deal of the money out of the record industry.
In my opinion they create socially damaging content. If they make less
money they will produce less of it. Musicians like to call themselvs
artists. Fine, an artist doese what they do or they create for the
love of doing it. I hope there is less money in the business so we get
people who love what they do or are pasionate about it. As far as
movies, I will go see or buy a good movie, it is a quality issue. $20+
for a movie is OK, I am paying for the quality of the DVD. I have
watched knock off movies, I hate it. Yes I have seen downloaded
movies. Depending on the kind of movie I don't mind. I still like
going to the Movies.
Even if recording becomes less profitable, there is still live shows,
merchindising and endorsements. As far as publishing goes, it is
cheeper to buy a book that pay for the paper and in cartrage. Also the
hassel and time of printing out a book.
The big corpoerations shouldn't worry too much. I think going after
p2p is very greedy. Why do they want to harrass their customers? They
have to come up with better content and marketing, if that means
lowering prices. Making criminals out of misslions of people is not
the answer. Laws should be changed to reflect the current situations.
If file shares were making a profit from copied material then go after
them.
|
| |
| |
Ernest wrote:
[...]
There is no possible way for copyright to last
more than another decade.
Still, many large organisations try to keep this dying old man
alive.
It must be a great time to be a copyright lawyer (enjoy it while it
lasts).
You statements argue against the mechanically forced
copyright enforcement, such as used by the music industry,
but does not mean the death of copyright or the principles
behind it. What we should see happening is a change in how
copyright is exercised, enforced and managed; this is happening
in some areas but not others. Time will see all change to a
more reasonable copyright control process that will rest on
good will, faith, and court orders for enforcement. This does
already happen in some areas but not all.
Good will and faith are not "control". Court orders are prohibitively
expensive if you're faced with a situation in which there are no
centralised copyright infringing organisations; but rather a world-wide
decentralised network of individuals sharing copies of things with
other individuals. In this scenario, courts orders are not economically
sustainable.
If I can legally get a download copy of the latest film for
$5.00 off the net, why would I bother trying to get a pirate
copy? In such a case the producer would get the whole $5
per copy and not have to share it with two dozen middlemen.
Consider the choice you described:
a) $5.00 for quick, easy to find download of a movie
b) Try to find an illegally copied version of same movie
The arguments in a consumers mind against (b) would include:
1 Difficulty in finding it;
2 I don't want to infringe copyright;
3 Speed and reliability of download;
The mp3 experiment shows (not surprisingly) that (1) and (3) are much
bigger factors in the consumer's mind. People still buy music files in
copy-protected formats, but I expect you'd find this to be inversely
proportional to their knowledge of how to rip cds, or browse p2p
networks. Most people I know with iPods (admittedly not the most
scientific survey) fill them up with MP3s, rather than Apple's
proprietary iTunes format.
The industry is trying to inflate (2) through lawsuits, but they know
very well it's not a sustainable enforcement means, it's just a scare
tactic. As more people get on the net, and bandwidth gets cheaper, as
networks get more decentralised (and anonymous), any punitive means of
making people care more about copyright, will become exponentially more
difficult, and expensive.
When tranfser speeds are no longer an issue, when the level of
consumers and the saturation of content has increased to the tipping
point, your choice in practical terms, for the most popular, widely
known content, will simply be between getting the same product, in the
same amount of time, and paying either $5 or $0. I'm not saying you
don't or shouldn't care about copyright, but when it comes the time
that this is the practical decision faced by the majority of consumers
(within the next decade), which choice do you think will prevail?
Also you must consider the broader trend, that more forms of media are
becoming attainable in digital format, from more places, in more
convenient means (big high-res colour-screened mobile phones;
electronic paper; laptops with wireless internet, PDAs with wireless
internet). This will change the general public mentality of what it
means to obtain media of all kinds: books, magazines, music, movies, tv
shows. Each form of media will be affected by the others, through the
effect each has on the public mentality.
Some musicians are doing this and doing well some are not,
this is the way of the future; lower charges and easier access.
Musicians are increasingly providing (at least some of) their music for
free download or free streaming on their websites. In this case (100
million dollar movies are another question), it has an economic
advantage for the artist, as it is an effective and non-inrusive means
of advertising their concerts. Whether this outweighs the potential
loss of record sales, is a decision each artist - that is not shackled
to a record company - has to make for themself, but it seems clear in
my mind which way the trend is going.
Deadly Ernest
@bywater.net.au
|
| |
| |
As far as publishing goes, it is
cheeper to buy a book that pay for the paper and in cartrage. Also
the
hassel and time of printing out a book.
The death of paper isn't as far off as you might think. Ok it's done us
well for these last few thousand years, but progress is progress.
The big corpoerations shouldn't worry too much. I think going after
p2p is very greedy. Why do they want to harrass their customers?
They
have to come up with better content and marketing, if that means
lowering prices. Making criminals out of misslions of people is not
the answer. Laws should be changed to reflect the current
situations.
If file shares were making a profit from copied material then go
after
them.
It's simply to scare people. If the prosecution of one person, scares a
thousand people from the networks, the level of content goes down, and
this discourages another thousand because it's so hard to find what
they want, so they turn to legitimate, and fairly affordable download
sites.
Or at least, this is the logic of the IP corporations. It can only last
as long they can identify and prosecute enough people. Four things
threaten this:
1 - ISPs unwilling to give up the identity of their customers merely
because some corporation is making a noise at them. There are
significant lawsuits in play about this issue at the moment.
2 - The rapid increase in net usage by, well, everyone, but especially
citizens of countries that don't don't give corporations as much power
to scare people as in the america (check out the legal threats section
on thepiratepay.org which is based in Sweden), or don't care about
copyright infingement (for example china, where 90+% of proprietary
software in use is unauthorised copies).
3 - The increasing decentralisation and anonymity of file-sharing, and
the increasing speeds which make using these networks more practical
and attractive to people.
4 - Consumer backlash. As you say "Why do they want to harrass their
customers?". Some people download more unauthorised copies because they
don't like the idea of making these people who are going after the
little guy, richer.
It can't be sustained. The next generation born will learn about
copyright in history class.
|
| |
| |
Copyright law is primarily designed to stop the ADVERTISING of pirated
material, for without that, the distribution network is stopped in its
tracks.
--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.
Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
1 - Arguments of economy and convenience, for using analogue
information (eg magazines, magnetic audio tapes) where a digital
alternative is available, are consistenly shrinking or disappearing.
Soon the only reasons left will be traditional aesthetics. Eg five
years from now: "But I *like* books, I don't care that electronic paper
(look it up if you don't know) is just as clear, is lighter, cheaper,
and easier to reuse, I like the smell of real paper".
2 - Forms of media that exist only in analogue form (for practical
use), are rapidly disappearing. Movies and television stations are, in
the last few years, some of the most popular forms of digital media.
Both in legal and illegal forms of distribution. But of course there's
also newspapers, radio stations, books, magazines, catalogues, comics,
etc, that have had popular digital equivalents, for many years.
3 - All forms of digital media are gradually converging to a single
delivery mechanism: The internet. Whether it be by desktop computers,
laptops with wireless internet, or mobile phones on 3G networks, almost
anything can be got on the internet, from almost anywhere. This is only
going to increase, and indeed accelerate.
4 - No form of digital copy-protection has ever been crack-proof, and
there is no reason to assume they ever will. Some have been as simple
as scribbling some pen on the underside of a CD, none are more
complicated than putting the right code into a common processor chip
and attaching it to the device in question.
5 - Once the crack (either in hardware or software form) has been made,
it is cheap and easy to propogate this crack to other users of the same
device or media, and none of the actual components used are illegal
(although the final product may be, in theory).
With these five reasons combined, it doesn't matter how many lawyers
large corporations employ, or how many politicans think it should
continue. When a law that affects everybody as much as copyright law,
becomes impossible to police, then it ceases to be a law. First in
practice then on paper. There is no possible way for copyright to last
more than another decade.
Still, many large organisations try to keep this dying old man alive.
It must be a great time to be a copyright lawyer (enjoy it while it
lasts).
|
| |
| |
However, the policy behind copyright is still valid. ie: rewarding
innovation. What do you suppose will replace it? I see it as a simple
endlessly escalating "arms race" of copyright protection schemes which are
then defeated, more copyright protection schemes, etc.
I use "buy the author" for my work: one price for a lifetime of work, that
includes message board participation.
A musician could do the same thing, and include participation in a website
that has all his work and even his live performances.
Once someone buys in they can still be profitable through advertising.
That is the model of the future.
|
| |
| |
You could have made this argument when the Xerox machine came out.
--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.
Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
Falky foo wrote:
It was not invented to reward people because they deserve it, it was
invented so that content would be created and released into society,
for the good of society, when the means of doing so were far more
expensive and rare (fewer literate people, more expensive paper,
typewriters, printing presses, research was far more expensive). The
intellectual work still takes time and effort, but for the same reasons
copyright is becoming less enforcable, it is becoming less necessary.
It won't be replaced by any equivalent, it will just no longer be
needed, its time is up.
which are
The arms race analogy is flawed in this case, because the two sides are
no equal in terms of the time or money costs. Protection schemes (such
as encryption) are an additional, artifical layer, they need to have
extra hardware to decode the stuff so you can even use it (eg watch
it), then another layer again so you can't copy what you see. You then
need to collude with industry partners, to come up with standard means
of delivery so people don't need 100 different players to watch movies
from different companies, and you need to distribute things on physical
media because that's another layer of difficulty in accessing or
copying the stuff. Cracking, on the other hand, is in most cases a
software solution that one person can figure out, then distribute
effectively for free, and almost instantly, to the whole world.
Also with individual media, once the song or movie or book is put in a
non-protected format, the cost of distributing it is almost negligible,
especially since no physical media needs to change hands (and again
bandwidth just keeps getting cheaper even as demand increases).
What is your observation: Would you say means of copying are getting
cheaper or more expensive? Are they getting easier or more difficult?
What about means of policing people's copying, and enforcing copyright
laws? Would you say that's getting easier or harder? Cheaper or dearer?
stuff.
Correct, but they are teaching internet skills in primary schools now.
There is no major monetary or technological barrier in the first world
(and those that exist are rapidly shrinking), it's just a question of
whether you know how to get it, and as that increases so will the
actual level of cracked content, until it's not worth your time or
money to even try to encrypt/protect the stuff in the first place, if
it's indended for mass distribution (secure, private communication is
another topic altogether).
know the
stuff.
for his
machine
At what's pretty much the most expensive end of the illegal copying
market, anyone with a couple of hundred bucks can get their x-box
modded, and a new hard drive, after which they can store tv shows,
games and movies that would have cost them thousands of dollars to
purchase in the current legal fashion, and which cost them maybe 50
bucks in rental fees once it's modded.
I look around and see death throes.
|
| |
| |
As far ac popyrights. Years ago, I sant with a tape recorder and a
sterio. I coppied music because I didn't have the money to buy tapes
and records. Later on, I didn't know who wrote a song to go buy it.
Also why spend so much money to get one good song? The record industry
is considerbly over paid. They are a recent thing. Before people just
played music. Some people got fameous like Elvis and the Beatles and
it was more about who was there siniging the song than the song. In
the past everyone sung everyone elses songs. I hope this copying will
take a great deal of the money out of the record industry.
Which means that talented musicians will no longer bother to release their
music, or will create their own contracts to protect it.
The purpose of copyright law actually is to eliminate the need for each
publisher to have to draft complex legal documents to protect their work.
|
| |
| |
1 - ISPs unwilling to give up the identity of their customers merely
because some corporation is making a noise at them. There are
significant lawsuits in play about this issue at the moment.
Those have to do with P2P not being the ISP's issue.
2 - The rapid increase in net usage by, well, everyone, but especially
citizens of countries that don't don't give corporations as much power
to scare people as in the america (check out the legal threats section
on thepiratepay.org which is based in Sweden), or don't care about
copyright infingement (for example china, where 90+% of proprietary
software in use is unauthorised copies).
The WTO will fix that.
3 - The increasing decentralisation and anonymity of file-sharing, and
the increasing speeds which make using these networks more practical
and attractive to people.
Writers can put out fake copies of their work that contain misleading
information and confuse the heck out of the pirates.
4 - Consumer backlash. As you say "Why do they want to harrass their
customers?".
Thieves aren't customers.
Some people download more unauthorised copies because they
don't like the idea of making these people who are going after the
little guy, richer.
If they don't want to pay for the work, they shouldn't steal it.
It can't be sustained. The next generation born will learn about
copyright in history class.
Not at all. Copyright is here to stay.
|
| |
| |
Good will and faith are not "control". Court orders are prohibitively
expensive if you're faced with a situation in which there are no
centralised copyright infringing organisations; but rather a world-wide
decentralised network of individuals sharing copies of things with
other individuals. In this scenario, courts orders are not economically
sustainable.
Then we have 20-year prison terms for infringement, and we give greater
latitude to the producers to catch pirates.
If I can legally get a download copy of the latest film for
$5.00 off the net, why would I bother trying to get a pirate
copy? In such a case the producer would get the whole $5
per copy and not have to share it with two dozen middlemen.
Consider the choice you described:
a) $5.00 for quick, easy to find download of a movie
b) Try to find an illegally copied version of same movie
The arguments in a consumers mind against (b) would include:
1 Difficulty in finding it;
2 I don't want to infringe copyright;
One-third of customers will never pirate.
3 Speed and reliability of download;
The mp3 experiment shows (not surprisingly) that (1) and (3) are much
bigger factors in the consumer's mind. People still buy music files in
copy-protected formats, but I expect you'd find this to be inversely
proportional to their knowledge of how to rip cds, or browse p2p
networks. Most people I know with iPods (admittedly not the most
scientific survey) fill them up with MP3s, rather than Apple's
proprietary iTunes format.
The industry is trying to inflate (2) through lawsuits, but they know
very well it's not a sustainable enforcement means, it's just a scare
tactic. As more people get on the net, and bandwidth gets cheaper, as
networks get more decentralised (and anonymous), any punitive means of
making people care more about copyright, will become exponentially more
difficult, and expensive.
Then we criminalize it. The threat of prison is a great deterrent if
lawsuits fail.
When tranfser speeds are no longer an issue, when the level of
consumers and the saturation of content has increased to the tipping
point, your choice in practical terms, for the most popular, widely
known content, will simply be between getting the same product, in the
same amount of time, and paying either $5 or $0. I'm not saying you
don't or shouldn't care about copyright, but when it comes the time
that this is the practical decision faced by the majority of consumers
(within the next decade), which choice do you think will prevail?
Check out my website if you want to see my solution: "Buy the author."
Also you must consider the broader trend, that more forms of media are
becoming attainable in digital format, from more places, in more
convenient means (big high-res colour-screened mobile phones;
electronic paper; laptops with wireless internet, PDAs with wireless
internet). This will change the general public mentality of what it
means to obtain media of all kinds: books, magazines, music, movies, tv
shows. Each form of media will be affected by the others, through the
effect each has on the public mentality.
I put advertisements even in my paid works so that I can profit from those
who insist on pirating me.
Some musicians are doing this and doing well some are not,
this is the way of the future; lower charges and easier access.
Musicians are increasingly providing (at least some of) their music for
free download or free streaming on their websites. In this case (100
million dollar movies are another question), it has an economic
advantage for the artist, as it is an effective and non-inrusive means
of advertising their concerts.
A writer can include message-board participation in his purchase.
There are also ways to put signatures in digital works that can trace the
transfer history.
Whether this outweighs the potential
loss of record sales, is a decision each artist - that is not shackled
to a record company - has to make for themself, but it seems clear in
my mind which way the trend is going.
Right now it's a bad trend.
|
| |
| |
The death of paper isn't as far off as you might think. Ok it's done us
well for these last few thousand years, but progress is progress.
Wrong. It is undergoing a renaissance.
What's the biggest business on the INTERNET?
Amazon - a BOOK seller.
Whoops.
It can't be sustained. The next generation born will learn about
copyright in history class.
Nope.
|
| |
| |
1 - Arguments of economy and convenience, for using analogue
information (eg magazines, magnetic audio tapes) where a digital
alternative is available, are consistenly shrinking or disappearing.
This would explain the boom in book retailing, and the consistent increases
in library book borrowings over the past 4 years - yes?
Soon the only reasons left will be traditional aesthetics. Eg five
years from now: "But I *like* books, I don't care that electronic paper
(look it up if you don't know) is just as clear, is lighter, cheaper,
and easier to reuse, I like the smell of real paper".
Just like the VCR was going to destroy the cinema industry, and TV was going
to destroy radio, and computers were going to destroy books, and......
2 - Forms of media that exist only in analogue form (for practical
use), are rapidly disappearing. Movies and television stations are, in
the last few years, some of the most popular forms of digital media.
Both in legal and illegal forms of distribution. But of course there's
also newspapers, radio stations, books, magazines, catalogues, comics,
etc, that have had popular digital equivalents, for many years.
And yet the traditional print materials CONTINUE to experience growth. We
publish more magazines than ever before, more books than ever before, and
librarys lend out more books than ever before. Something in your prediction
does not compute.
3 - All forms of digital media are gradually converging to a single
delivery mechanism: The internet. Whether it be by desktop computers,
laptops with wireless internet, or mobile phones on 3G networks, almost
anything can be got on the internet, from almost anywhere. This is only
going to increase, and indeed accelerate.
Whoope do, this does nothing to advance your case.
4 - No form of digital copy-protection has ever been crack-proof, and
there is no reason to assume they ever will.
Ditto anything printed on paper - the photocopier has been around for some
time.
Prior to that we had the pen.
5 - Once the crack (either in hardware or software form) has been made,
it is cheap and easy to propogate this crack to other users of the same
device or media, and none of the actual components used are illegal
(although the final product may be, in theory).
And yet sales of commercial DVDs, console games, computer software, CDs, etc
continue unabated.
The beardy minotory of the population who could be arsed acquiring the
materials and skills necessary to copy material are so poor that they would
hardly spend a dime on copyrighted material anyway.
Not much of a prophet, are you?
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
You could have made this argument when the Xerox machine came out.
1 - The first and every additional xerox copy costs time and money.
Digital copying, once an unencrypted copy exists, costs virtually 0,
and is close to instantaneous.
2 - Distribution of xeroxed copies requires a physical transfer of
paper, and again costs a lot of time and money. Internet transfer is
close to instant and with unlimited acocunts (which are fairly popular
these days), the only cost is the initial connection fee (which people
have anyway to read emails and surf the web). Even with the high speed
and affordability (compared to xeroxing), is still getting faster and
cheaper.
3 - xerox machines can't copy music files, video files, software, etc.
4 - Most households in the first world have the internet, and the
adoption rate is increasing rapidly in the rest of the world. How many
houses have a xerox machine?
I could not have made this argument when the xerox came out, but I can
make it now.
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
1 - ISPs unwilling to give up the identity of their customers
merely
because some corporation is making a noise at them. There are
significant lawsuits in play about this issue at the moment.
Those have to do with P2P not being the ISP's issue.
That's correct. It's very hard, though, for copyright holding
organisations to identify and find someone if they can't get the
information from the ISP to match a name and physical address to an IP
address.
2 - The rapid increase in net usage by, well, everyone, but
especially
citizens of countries that don't don't give corporations as much
power
to scare people as in the america (check out the legal threats
section
on thepiratepay.org which is based in Sweden), or don't care about
copyright infingement (for example china, where 90+% of proprietary
software in use is unauthorised copies).
The WTO will fix that.
In the case of China? Maybe, but very few countries, including members
of the WTO, have laws weighted so heavily towards the IP holders as
America. Generally (in democratic nations) there's more of a balance
with personal privacy. The "netification" of the world is going to move
the internet's political center further and further away from the U.S,
and the IP corporations there are having increasing trouble enforcing
their copyrights even in their home country.
If you think there are a lot of people on the internet now, consider
how quickly it has grown, even in the poorer countries, how much the
prices have fallen, and how much of the world there is left to get
connected.
3 - The increasing decentralisation and anonymity of file-sharing,
and
the increasing speeds which make using these networks more
practical
and attractive to people.
Writers can put out fake copies of their work that contain misleading
information and confuse the heck out of the pirates.
And they do, but with decentralised protocols like bit-torrent, fakes
are quickly identified and even if they're not labelled as fakes, fewer
people keep sharing them and this automatically makes them harder to
find and slower to download.
4 - Consumer backlash. As you say "Why do they want to harrass
their
customers?".
Thieves aren't customers.
How simple it all is. Nobody who downloads illegal copies has ever
bought an authorised CD or ever will again. Nobody who buys CDs
regularly ever downloads illegal copies. I'm glad you've set that
straight, because it could be a real problem if there were any
significant grey area.
Some people download more unauthorised copies because they
don't like the idea of making these people who are going after the
little guy, richer.
If they don't want to pay for the work, they shouldn't steal it.
Copying isn't the same as stealing, even in those cases that they're
both illegal. If I had a star-trek style matter replicator and zapped
somebody's vegetable garden, so that I made an exact copy of the food
growing in it, this would presumably be illegal (if i didn't have their
permission), but I haven't actually stolen anything from their garden.
When it comes to copyrighted work in digital format, the
"matter-replicator" has already been invented, it's simply a computer
connected to the internet.
It can't be sustained. The next generation born will learn about
copyright in history class.
Not at all. Copyright is here to stay.
Suit yourself. Don't say nobody warned you.
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
As far ac popyrights. Years ago, I sant with a tape recorder and a
sterio. I coppied music because I didn't have the money to buy
tapes
and records. Later on, I didn't know who wrote a song to go buy
it.
Also why spend so much money to get one good song? The record
industry
is considerbly over paid. They are a recent thing. Before people
just
played music. Some people got fameous like Elvis and the Beatles
and
it was more about who was there siniging the song than the song.
In
the past everyone sung everyone elses songs. I hope this copying
will
take a great deal of the money out of the record industry.
Which means that talented musicians will no longer bother to release
their
music, or will create their own contracts to protect it.
1 - There were professional musicians before record companies. They
made money by performing.
2 - Physical records are now, from a purely logistical standpoint, the
least efficient and most expensive way to distribute music.
3 - Recorded music (paid for or not), makes people who like the music
want to see the band in concert.
The purpose of copyright law actually is to eliminate the need for
each
publisher to have to draft complex legal documents to protect their
work.
No, the purpose of copyright law is to encourage people to create and
distribute the stuff in the first place; it was created for the benefit
of the eventual consumers, in a time when it was much more expensive to
record and distribute anything as abstract as words. The only thing
"protected" by copyright law is an artifical monopoly on the
reproduction of a pattern of information; a monopoly which would not
exist, could not exist (individual contracts for each copy of a book or
album? You can't be serious) if it weren't for copyright.
|
| |
| |
Scott Hillard wrote:
Wrong. It is undergoing a renaissance.
What's the biggest business on the INTERNET?
Amazon - a BOOK seller.
Whoops.
If you froze technology today, you would be right. If you let
technology continue, paper as a mass-medium will be dead within a
decade.
You think this is contradicted in some way by pointing out how
efficient the internet is at organising the distribution of physical
items? It's even more efficient at organising the distribution of
information in electronic form.
It can't be sustained. The next generation born will learn about
copyright in history class.
Nope.
Well, that's a goog point, but I stand by my earlier statement.
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
Good will and faith are not "control". Court orders are
prohibitively
expensive if you're faced with a situation in which there are no
centralised copyright infringing organisations; but rather a
world-wide
decentralised network of individuals sharing copies of things with
other individuals. In this scenario, courts orders are not
economically
sustainable.
Then we have 20-year prison terms for infringement, and we give
greater
latitude to the producers to catch pirates.
Yes, there are actually people who want the act of copying a book or CD
to be punishable by 20 years in prison. Don't get me wrong, it's a
great use of tax-payers money, and it will be extremely popular, but
I'm just not sure 20 years is enough.
Consider the choice you described:
a) $5.00 for quick, easy to find download of a movie
b) Try to find an illegally copied version of same movie
The arguments in a consumers mind against (b) would include:
1 Difficulty in finding it;
2 I don't want to infringe copyright;
One-third of customers will never pirate.
That's brilliant logic, assuming:
1 - Everybody believes at least one of these reasons.
2 - The reasons are evenly distributed among the population
3 - No one who is against copyright infringment in theory, has ever
done it in practice.
Why would you assume even one of these?
3 Speed and reliability of download;
The mp3 experiment shows (not surprisingly) that (1) and (3) are
much
bigger factors in the consumer's mind. People still buy music files
in
copy-protected formats, but I expect you'd find this to be
inversely
proportional to their knowledge of how to rip cds, or browse p2p
networks. Most people I know with iPods (admittedly not the most
scientific survey) fill them up with MP3s, rather than Apple's
proprietary iTunes format.
The industry is trying to inflate (2) through lawsuits, but they
know
very well it's not a sustainable enforcement means, it's just a
scare
tactic. As more people get on the net, and bandwidth gets cheaper,
as
networks get more decentralised (and anonymous), any punitive means
of
making people care more about copyright, will become exponentially
more
difficult, and expensive.
Then we criminalize it. The threat of prison is a great deterrent if
lawsuits fail.
Yeah it's done a great job in, say, America's war on drugs. Highest
prison population in the world, now. (and no illegal drugs on the
streets, as well!)
When tranfser speeds are no longer an issue, when the level of
consumers and the saturation of content has increased to the
tipping
point, your choice in practical terms, for the most popular, widely
known content, will simply be between getting the same product, in
the
same amount of time, and paying either $5 or $0. I'm not saying you
don't or shouldn't care about copyright, but when it comes the time
that this is the practical decision faced by the majority of
consumers
(within the next decade), which choice do you think will prevail?
Check out my website if you want to see my solution: "Buy the
author."
You mean intellectual slavery?
Also you must consider the broader trend, that more forms of media
are
becoming attainable in digital format, from more places, in more
convenient means (big high-res colour-screened mobile phones;
electronic paper; laptops with wireless internet, PDAs with
wireless
internet). This will change the general public mentality of what it
means to obtain media of all kinds: books, magazines, music,
movies, tv
shows. Each form of media will be affected by the others, through
the
effect each has on the public mentality.
I put advertisements even in my paid works so that I can profit from
those
who insist on pirating me.
This will become common, I expect. Eventually to the point where movie
producers *want* people to copy their stuff and try to make downloads
from their website the quickest, becuase coke or sony (or whoever's
products are used during the movie) pay them for every download.
Some musicians are doing this and doing well some are not,
this is the way of the future; lower charges and easier access.
Musicians are increasingly providing (at least some of) their music
for
free download or free streaming on their websites. In this case
(100
million dollar movies are another question), it has an economic
advantage for the artist, as it is an effective and non-inrusive
means
of advertising their concerts.
A writer can include message-board participation in his purchase.
There are also ways to put signatures in digital works that can trace
the
transfer history.
And there are also ways to strip digital signatures. Copy protection or
tracking schemes never last these days.
Whether this outweighs the potential
loss of record sales, is a decision each artist - that is not
shackled
to a record company - has to make for themself, but it seems clear
in
my mind which way the trend is going.
Right now it's a bad trend.
I can see both sides to the argument. But moral arguments aside, I know
which side will prevail in practice. I recommend learning to live in
the new world.
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
Copyright law is primarily designed to stop the ADVERTISING of
pirated
material, for without that, the distribution network is stopped in
its
tracks.
Yeah, but it would be a real worry if some system of mass-communication
emerged that allowed individuals to communicate quickly and across the
globe without having to publicly advertise that they were doing so.
|
| |
| |
Scott Hillard wrote:
This would explain the boom in book retailing, and the consistent
increases
in library book borrowings over the past 4 years - yes?
I think the boom in retailing can be explained by lower retailing
costs, thanks to the internet. If you notice I qualify the statement
above with "where a digital alternative is available". Paper books
still have a few advantages over possible digital alternatives, they
are more mobile for something that is just as cheap, and cheaper than
something that is just as mobile, and easier to read than both (due to
their high resolution).
As I said, these arguments are rapidly shrinking (though I agree they
haven't disappeared, yet). Have a google for "electronic paper" if you
don't believe me. The technology in this area is rapidly improving in
all ways (speed, resolution, price, weight).
Soon the only reasons left will be traditional aesthetics. Eg five
years from now: "But I *like* books, I don't care that electronic
paper
(look it up if you don't know) is just as clear, is lighter,
cheaper,
and easier to reuse, I like the smell of real paper".
Just like the VCR was going to destroy the cinema industry, and TV
was going
to destroy radio, and computers were going to destroy books,
and......
This first point is strictly about analogue vs digital. Almost any
video store now has more DVDs (digital) than Video Cassettes
(analogue), and digital movie theatres are being developed by the big
players in the industry even as we speak.
2 - Forms of media that exist only in analogue form (for practical
use), are rapidly disappearing. Movies and television stations are,
in
the last few years, some of the most popular forms of digital
media.
Both in legal and illegal forms of distribution. But of course
there's
also newspapers, radio stations, books, magazines, catalogues,
comics,
etc, that have had popular digital equivalents, for many years.
And yet the traditional print materials CONTINUE to experience
growth. We
publish more magazines than ever before, more books than ever before,
and
librarys lend out more books than ever before. Something in your
prediction
does not compute.
This second point says nothing about the decline of analogue, but
rather the rise of digital. Both can increase at the same time, the
point here is we're getting to the stage where everything you could
want is in digital format (although we're not there yet).
3 - All forms of digital media are gradually converging to a single
delivery mechanism: The internet. Whether it be by desktop
computers,
laptops with wireless internet, or mobile phones on 3G networks,
almost
anything can be got on the internet, from almost anywhere. This is
only
going to increase, and indeed accelerate.
Whoope do, this does nothing to advance your case.
Given points 1 and 2, which deal with the increase in digital content;
it's relevant that decentralised distribution of digital content of all
kinds is becoming faster, cheaper and more widespread.
4 - No form of digital copy-protection has ever been crack-proof,
and
there is no reason to assume they ever will.
Ditto anything printed on paper - the photocopier has been around for
some
time.
Prior to that we had the pen.
If you compare the a) time, b) effort, and c) cost of either of these
with digital copying, your analogy seems pretty useless.
5 - Once the crack (either in hardware or software form) has been
made,
it is cheap and easy to propogate this crack to other users of the
same
device or media, and none of the actual components used are illegal
(although the final product may be, in theory).
And yet sales of commercial DVDs, console games, computer software,
CDs, etc
continue unabated.
This is to be expected, since even if you could pay to download a movie
for the same price, and get it directly from the producer's website, it
would still be quicker for most people to go down to their local
video-store. How long do you think this will remain true?
The beardy minotory of the population who could be arsed acquiring
the
materials and skills necessary to copy material are so poor that they
would
hardly spend a dime on copyrighted material anyway.
Materials = A computer connected to the internet.
Skills = Internent and computer literacy. These are being taught now
from primary school upwards.
Not much of a prophet, are you?
Not in your mind, obviously. But I did say no more than a 10 years.
It's a bit early to say you've proven me wrong when it's been less than
10 days.
|
| |
