You can't download a hard copy book or a write once newspaper. You can use VoIP infrastructure for calls and many ISPs offer that AND charge for long distance. It's a service. You can steal infinite, lossless copies of somebody's recorded music or films, though. Stop selling apples at the orange stand. It makes you look like you think people are gullible.

I'm actually surprised the print industry hasn't cracked down more. I don't know how many books I've read in .pdf format rather than purchase the pricey hardcover.

Runs_With_Scissors_: The real story here is the censorship both bills would promote.

Both of these bills would give the government the ability to prevent you from looking at certain web sites. Christ on a pogo stick.

Yep. That's what I really took away from the article. Not good. Not good at all. It would be like closing off all the streets to a restaurant ... just because. Nope. Not good.

What is this long-distance phone company you speak of?

I hate the world so much right now.

gerrymander: Not ban. But relief? Absolutely they did. Ten years ago there was plenty of legislative talk about how "click and mortar" bookstores would suffer if the Internet sales tax moratorium was passed. Just because they lost doesn't mean the lobbyists weren't called out.

What would be wrong with a 1cent transaction fee for all sales over 100, nonProfits exempt? I'd think that because so much public money went intO developing the internet that there should be some semblance of a minimal toll for the public coffers.

FTFA This isn't the only way the story of Hollywood and the Internet could end...

Consider the business of selling old movies with editing tools. You heard that. What if Hollywood sold films with the ability to cut and paste, add characters, change lines, copy scenes etc.? The simplest would be a version of a film allowing some cutting and pasting, but no other editing. More interesting -- and more expensive -- would be a version that allowed even more complex editing (such as substituting characters). Finally, the most expensive version would be a film with no restrictions except for watermarking (so as to enable tracking).

Hollywood owns the copyrights on those films. No one could compete....

I don't get it. Does the author seriously think people wouldn't torrent those too?

The print industry is in the same conglomerates as Hollywood and the recording studios, and the conglomerates are focusing on the latter 2 because they're much, much, much, much, much bigger moneymakers.

Hollywood and the internet have been at odds for years. The only news here is that Hollywood is starting to win.

Maybe it's time to build a new internet. This time we're not going to tell the uncool kids, k?

More like bookstores looked at the problem, shrugged, and went to a download/personalized online archive model after a period of experimentation with things like subscription services, etc that stretched from about the mid-90s to 2002/2003ish. Downloading pirated music didn't really become all that feasible on average until the late 90s, and that industry's getting of the requisite clue has only just recently gotten out of the "farking around with various models" stage and settled into roughly the same model of digital distribution.

Video, likewise, has only really been feasible as an illegal download since, say, 2005, so expect to see them stop farking around with dumb subscription models and throwing lawyers ate everything to get breathing space and go to a downloadable/personal archive model in about 2015 or so.

Long story short, there's basically a ten-year arc from downloading something becoming really realistic for everyone on the internet (as opposed to just the super-nerds with super-connections and a willingness to deal with damn-near-guiless interfaces) through the "sue everyone" and the "oh, shiat, none of our alternative business models are working" phases and then finally into the "oh, people are still willing to pay for content, they just expect us to keep backups and not to charge as much as for physical media" conclusion. Frankly this isn't even unique to the internet, it was the same with audio tapes, VCRs, DVR, etc. Expect media distributors to farking learn and skip straight to the last step approximately a decade after hell is subsumed by a glacier.

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: NewportBarGuy: What about the Yellow Pages?

They make for great vehicle armor.

You can learn a lot from Burn Notice.

Mythbusters did it, too.

Oh, and f*ck the RIAA.

this is the SOPA story that we get to finally go green on the politics tab ?

lame.
lame
lame


this proposed bill is 290384890293084098x worse than not having net neutrality could ever be. this must be defeated.

MrEricSir: Maybe it's time to build a new internet.

I've been thinking the same thing. We need to decentralize the shiat out of this thing. That's an extraordinarily difficult problem, though.

Fish in a Barrel: MrEricSir: Maybe it's time to build a new internet.

I've been thinking the same thing. We need to decentralize the shiat out of this thing. That's an extraordinarily difficult problem, though.

Exactly. The current internet is only decentralized enough to withstand a nuclear attack. Turns out, the anti-freedom lobby is more powerful than a nuclear attack.

Leader O'Cola: this is the SOPA story that we get to finally go green on the politics tab ?

lame.
lame
lame


this proposed bill is 290384890293084098x worse than not having net neutrality could ever be. this must be defeated.

what a booming discussion this thread is full of !

Leader O'Cola: what a booming discussion this thread is full of !

What's more important:
a) Freedom of the Internet
b) Herman Cain's love life

Fish in a Barrel: Leader O'Cola: what a booming discussion this thread is full of !

What's more important:
a) Freedom of the Internet
b) Herman Cain's love life



smh
fml
:(

Runs_With_Scissors_: Both of these bills would give the government the ability to prevent you from looking at certain web sites. Christ on a pogo stick.

This has never, ever, happened before.

Shaggy_C: Runs_With_Scissors_: Both of these bills would give the government the ability to prevent you from looking at certain web sites. Christ on a pogo stick.

This has never, ever, happened before.

The difference being that under these bills, a warrant wouldn't be required. Just the say-so of some random person.

If either bill goes through, I imagine Anonymous will have a veritable field day being those random people.

Has "fark the RIAA" been covered yet? 'Cos, seriously, fark the RIAA.

Call it what it is: copyright infringement. Not theft.


Copyright infringement ! = Stealing

Its like saying "Rape = jaywalking".

bunner: You can't download a hard copy book or a write once newspaper. You can use VoIP infrastructure for calls and many ISPs offer that AND charge for long distance. It's a service. You can steal infinite, lossless copies of somebody's recorded music or films, though. Stop selling apples at the orange stand. It makes you look like you think people are gullible.

Of course you have to use "steal" which implies something entirely different from "copyright infringement."

If the music and movie industries were suffering so much, you wouldn't see them both making record profit year after year. The "losses" they claim are the difference between what they thought they would increase their revenue to and what it actually increased to.

I'm not gonna say that piracy DOESN'T take some money away from publishers/distributors/authors/filmmakers/etc, because that's stupid. But I can tell you, honestly, that I think the difference is MORE than made up by people having access to things they wouldn't have seen otherwise and then making a purchase they wouldn't have without piracy.

Personal example: Shortly after The Matrix came out, I wanted one of the songs from the film (Dissolved Girl by Massive Attack). It's not on the soundtrack, though. So I did some searching around the internet and found a copy of that song. I liked it! So I downloaded everything Massive Attack ever published. I liked it all! So I purchased their entire discography. There is much media in my collection that I wouldn't have even heard of, let alone purchased, without piracy.

Right now I have a list of games I've pirated but intend to purchase;

Games;
Portal 2
Skyrim

Without piracy I would never have played either of those games (because I'm broke as fark). Because I pirated them, and absolutely loved them, I now intend to purchase both as soon as I can.

Movies;
Grandma's Boy
The Fifth Element
Donnie Darko

These movies aren't new, but I wouldn't have seen either if I hadn't downloaded a copy of them (or in Donnie Darko's case, been given a copy on disc from a friend)

TV shows;
Fringe
Dexter
Walking Dead
Misfits

I intend to purchase hard copies of all of those shows, none of which I would have seen without piracy. Misfits isn't even available in my country.



I may, or may not, be the average media pirate. But I think there are enough pirates like me to make up for lost revenue - because one pirated download does NOT and NEVER WILL equal one lost sale.

Leader O'Cola: this proposed bill is 290384890293084098x worse than not having net neutrality could ever be. this must be defeated.

It's going nowhere fast. Its major backers (read: BSA and friends) have done an about face in the past few days. That, combined with the public outrage, all but guarantees that this bill is dee ee aye dee DEAD.

Here's a list of things that are pirated on my computer:


/doing it wrong, apparently
//1%er

Goodfella: [You wouldn't download bread]

Call it what it is: copyright infringement. Not theft.


Copyright infringement ! = Stealing

Its like saying "Rape = jaywalking".

I love that graphic.

The widespread availability of computers and networks is equivalent (at least for information) to giving everyone Calvin's Duplicator. Anyone who thinks this can be reversed or undone is simply altogether delusional. I'm sorry, but that's the truth.

Computers make the supply of any digital information unlimited* because that's the essence of what they do: copy and manipulate data. Attempting to apply models based on finite supply to information that exists in digital form are absurd and fail upon inspection (Can you even finish reading "resell your used digital music" without giggling at the insanity?). Anyone chattering about how copying is "stealing" is either unable or unwilling to recognize this, as the very notion simply does not apply.

Amazing, I think it is. All of history except the last 200 years to exit the agricultural age, just 150 years to exit the industrial age, and now after only 30-40 years in the post-industrial age information distribution has entered the final (?) post-scarcity age. I just hope that the trend keeps up and physical objects begin to enter the post-scarcity regime before too long. Then we're gonna see some serious shiat.

*for all meaningful purposes

Oh hey, actually they're avalable from amazon.com too- they weren't last time I checked (just the UK format DVDs last time I looked) which will mean cheaper shipping. Huzzah!

An interesting thing I was told recently the physical cost of a book(paper, glue and ink) is about $3, the rest of the price of it goes to the people and services behind the book, like editors, middlemen, retailers, writers and marketing.
It was a big problem in getting eBooks online because people didn't understand that a should cost $3 less as an eBook based on the traditional model and the publishers took ages to work out why no-one was buying them(Of course it was probably more than a $3 discount because you could remove the entire retailer expenses). Once they worked out the kinks in the system they started selling them at much lower prices and hoped mostly to make up the loses with older books that have more than made their original money back. Thats probably the only working model for the entertainment media, sell everything cheap, hope that the already profitable will subsidise the rest.

LazarusLong42: Shaggy_C: Runs_With_Scissors_: Both of these bills would give the government the ability to prevent you from looking at certain web sites. Christ on a pogo stick.

This has never, ever, happened before.

The difference being that under these bills, a warrant wouldn't be required. Just the say-so of some random person.

If either bill goes through, I imagine Anonymous will have a veritable field day being those random people.

I've been thinking about this a bit. The BoR requires warrants for seizures, so doesn't SOPA and its Senate-equivalent, by removing the need for warrants in regards to seizing a specific asset (domain names), alter the 4th Amendment? As such, doesn't trying to pass it via normal legislative channels make it doubly unconstitutional; both for the clear bypass of 4th Amendment protections, and by passing what is clearly a Constitutional amendment via the normal legislative process? Of course, they got away with all sorts of similar things with the TYRANNY Act of 2001, so it shouldn't be surprising that they're trying to do it again.

LavenderWolf: Right now I have a list of games I've pirated but intend to purchase;

Games;
Portal 2
Skyrim

Without piracy I would never have played either of those games (because I'm broke as fark). Because I pirated them, and absolutely loved them, I now intend to purchase both as soon as I can.

Movies;
Grandma's Boy
The Fifth Element
Donnie Darko

These movies aren't new, but I wouldn't have seen either if I hadn't downloaded a copy of them (or in Donnie Darko's case, been given a copy on disc from a friend)

TV shows;
Fringe
Dexter
Walking Dead
Misfits

I intend to purchase hard copies of all of those shows, none of which I would have seen without piracy. Misfits isn't even available in my country.

So your entire argument for pilfering material is that someday you'll get around to actually purchasing it?

Look, I'm no fan of the music industry or Hollywood, but that's the dumbest argument I've heard in...forever.

For me, most of what I have is music. But I either delete the files after giving them a listen or I buy the CD. The problem with most music these days is that they have one or two good songs that are studio beefed and splattered over the radios and TV that sound like good songs and then the other 10 songs on the CD are utter, reprehensible garbage. Often, the rest of the album is an entirely different style and sounds nothing like the singles being played that got me interested in the band in the first place.

It's getting like that more and more since about 12 years ago. The industry isn't producing music, it's producing singles that it can throw on a wall and see what sticks and I'll be damned if I'm going to throw down $17 on a disc for 1 or 2 good songs and the rest be garbage.

-Most pirates buy more media than most non pirates.
-The majority of piracy is perpetrated by a small amount of pirates.
-The majority of pirates don't even use the majority of the material they pirate (i.e. people downloading large discographies only for one or two album's worth of songs).
-The majority of bootlegging and the major centers for piracy are in locations where content holders or retail outlets charge unattainably expensive prices (i.e. 400% to 1000%+ markup compared to the US prices) for said media.
-Piracy in many other "non-Western" places (i.e. Russia) for interactive media (i.e. videogames) occurs often because the pirated version actually does a better job of packaging the game than the official retail version, which often has forced, terrible translations

Am I the only one that sees an assload of viable and incredibly lucrative business opportunities and market models in every single one of those problems? Above all else, going sue-happy just seems the most counter-productive of choices.

Goodfella: Call it what it is: copyright infringement. Not theft.


Copyright infringement ! = Stealing


It's taking something without paying for it. How is that not stealing?

Guelph35: It's taking something

No it's not.
What is the original owner deprived of? Potentialities don't count.

tomcatadam: Guelph35: It's taking something

No it's not.
What is the original owner deprived of? Potentialities don't count.

Money.

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: NewportBarGuy: What about the Yellow Pages?

They make for great vehicle armor.

You can learn a lot from Burn Notice.

They would have to use another Yellow Page on top of the installed Yellow Pages to make the armor viable.

You can learn a lot factually from Mythbusters.

tomcatadam: What is the original owner deprived of? Potentialities don't count.

This. Anyone still parroting the "Copyright infringement == stealing" line has either watched one too many MPAA-enforced guilt pieces at the beginning of feature films (another lovely "feature" that pirates don't have to deal with, mind), or is shilling for the industry groups.

Lets say I download your movie. What have I done?

Deprived you of a sale? No, because you can't lose something you never had to begin with. You'll notice that of all the judgements that the AA groups have gotten against filesharers, they never push the "deprived sale" angle when it comes to damages. Merely punitive damages as is presented in the laws for.. drumroll please... copyright infringement!

All I've actually done is do something that you didn't explicitly authorize me to do.

But call it what it is. Hell, even SCOTUS has ruled on this (look up Dowling vs United States).

Copyright infringement is copyright infringement.. not theft. Just because it doesn't sound evil enough is not a good enough reason to confuse them.

It ain't going to make any farking difference. Shut down the whole internet, and people will be ripping DVDs to DIVX before sticking it on a USB hard drive and taking it into school, work, wherever.

My request to the movie industry is for god's sake, make it farking easy to buy a movie. Right now, downloading is a better product. If I really want to see a movie, I'll find it far quicker than it will take someone to deliver it to me. And you have to get rid of the following things:-

1) I ain't paying more than a shiny disc costs me new. We both know that downloads have lower costs, stop trying to gouge me.
2) I ain't paying for streaming which means that if the connection goes down, my movie stops playing. I want the whole thing down, so I can watch the movie properly.
3) I want to play it anywhere. Forever. You can forget these schemes that allow me to watch on my phone, PC or tablet as long as I have some DRM installed. I want to know that my 2050 cerebral cortex video system will play it.

I buy far more music since Amazon MP3 than I did in the pre-Napster age, because it's easy. Let me repeat that: I buy more music now than when I had no option but CD, because it's convenient (possibly too convenient). My PC gaming has taken off since Steam, because it's just so damned easy to buy a game.

Loads of my friends now have a NAS which works off their PS3 or XBox. It's just much, much nicer to have your movies on a jukebox where you can select something and watch it than fannying around with discs.

Downloading MP3s is like taping a song of the radio. I did the latter in high school, now I do the former.