For starters, it's not stealing and it's not theft.

If someone steals a tangible product, that product no longer exists to the retailer or producer. ie; If someone makes a TV, and goes to sell it, but someone steals it. That TV is gone from the store. That is stealing, that is theft.

If someone downloads a digital product, they are not stealing. They are making a copy of the original product to their own computer. So there are now TWO of the product. If someone makes a TV, and goes to sell it, but someone comes into the store with a TV replicating device and copies the TV, then walks out with their copy. The retailer didn't loose their TV.

There is a law designed specifically for this situation. It's the United States Copyright Law. When that person made a copy of the TV, the very moment they then possessed the copy, they were required to have a license to the copy. If they don't own the license they are then committing copyright infringement. They aren't stealing, and they aren't thieves. They've simply committed copyright infringement.


... The problem, is that people will sit online all day crying like babies. Waaa waaa waaaa, internet piracy is stealing waaa waaaa waaaa torrents are bad.

That doesn't solve anything, and there is no police force out there that is going to come to your rescue. YOU made a product, YOU have a copyright, YOU need to get off your ass and protect that copyright. It's as simple as that. The laws and legal system is in place for YOU to protect your products and copyrights. It's not the other way around, there isn't some magical being out there to do your own work. If YOU want to own a copyright, it's up to YOU to protect that copyright.

So quit whining and having moot discussions on if piracy is theft. It's not, it's copyright infringement. So go protect your copyright.

I mean seriously, if you're going to bitch all day long on the internet and not even understand something so simple and basic like COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

You really really really need to get into a different business and start selling physical tangible products. Because you have no business selling digital goods, specially online.

:2 cents::2 cents:

Creating a copyright doesn't stop people from downloading your product, thus bypassing the payment system you have set up. You're making the assumption that there is any way to really keep up with the copyright infringement fight.

If some kind of teleporting tech existed, and people could download TVs from the internet to materialize in their house -- and get away with it -- they would do it.

There a lot of companies providing such services a lot of them are on this very board!

Dont worry I would say in the next 3 yrs piracy laws are going to change. First pirates are losing court cases and secondly with e book reader growing in popularity. More and more things are going digital only. So the definition of theft is going to change. Also when the money is flowing most dont care but when the money is trickling people start policing their shit much more aggressively.

So....

what is your magic solution?

how does a copyright owner police the (literally) hundreds of thousands of sites that 'could be' giving away their works?

and the services on this board and elsewhere do not get to all of them - because thats impossible.

and whats your solution to:
1) send DMCA
2) hope offending site doesn't ignore it
3) then they take the material down and put it right back up (slightly altered file name)
4) then they put up some other bit of your work
5) copyright holder has to do this every single day (remember - hundreds of thousands of potential offending sites)
6) and the copyright owner also has to be able to 'register' to private sites or PAY to get on to rapidshares or download.to or hundreds of other 'pay' filesharing sites.


sure - you make it sound easy - but you are not actually thinking of the scope of what you say.


try again

.

I'm not sure it will ever really be considered a major enough offense to "illegally" download something. IMO the act of piracy is actually the public dissemination/sharing of something you do not have licensing rights to publicly disseminate/share. For example:

"7. Can I show NFL games in my bar or restaurant?

NFL SUNDAY TICKET is available for commercial locations, including bars and restaurants.. For more information, please call 1-800-242-0473 or visit www.directstartv.com/commercial. Commercial locations require an appropriate license agreement."

Also, another related issue but with showing the Super Bowl at a church: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=4229536&page=1

The interesting thing about that is that unlike with the whole timeshifting argument, this is actually at the time of showing. So if public sharing of it can't even happen WITHOUT timeshifting unless an additional license is purchased, how should it be allowed WITH timeshifting? I realize in the first case that it's a commercial entity showing it and it helps them make money, but not sure a church could be considered a commercial entity.

I do think the law has shown to be on the side of people who share with their friends. People however are not "friends" with random people around the world online that they don't know, and even if it's under the guise of backup, publicly "storing" a file is no different than publicly sharing a file. If it was on a backup site where password was required to get the file, and the person putting it on there doesn't post the password publicly, then that to me isn't piracy. Even if they email a friend the password and that friend emails a friend the password etc. until it's gone to a million people. Or even if the first person gives the password to a friend and the friend posts it online - the first person wasn't guilty of anything but the friend would be IMO. The moment the password is posted on a public place, they've committed piracy IMO. If they're backing the file up on a site where it's publicly available without a password, at the point of putting the file up they've committed piracy IMO.

I say IMO because I can't pretend to know the law on this - I don't. But just judging from policies like the NFL one mentioned above, it would seem that the major difference between sharing and piracy is private vs. public and people you know vs. people you don't.

One gray area that I'm not sure how to interpret is a site like Hulu. Obviously some US shows do show on channels in Canada for instance, and as such Canadians can view those shows, but given that Hulu is US-Only more or less, it would seem that the license-holders of those shows do not want viewing rights to be given to people outside the US (probably because many of the US commercials would be useless to show to them). So there may be cases where piracy extends to viewing something you don't have viewing rights for, but determining who has viewing rights for what is a whole 'nother can of worms I guess.

Why isn't HULU viewable in Canada? Is it blocked by the govt. or something?

That is the point you have to outsource this to policing company and they have agents who do this for a living , the offending site cant ignore the notice? why because if you choose the outsourcing company , the offenders cant ignore them because if they do the police company can simply shut them down and they don't want it. so they have to take the content off, the chase goes on to the point that they have to consider becoming a partner with the production company or close the business down for ever! this type of service is very cheap have you ever tried it with a professional company?

This is the problem....when that file is posted PUBLICLY, it's no longer "sharing with friends". It's like getting a reel of a movie that is currently in theaters and showing it publicly in a theater and not paying a licensing fee or booking fee.

If shoot a porn scene and want that available for my paying members, why should anyone else have a "right" to watch that scene? As the creator of that scene, shouldn't I be able to dictate how that scene is shown and in which format? Should anyone with an internet connections have a RIGHT to view a scene I created? I don't want to be in the business of creating charity porn. "Aww, those poor starving college students can't afford a membership to view my porn scene? Maybe I'll be charitable and let them watch it for free because they are poor." Hey, could I get a tax write off for providing free porn to starving college students? In that case, I might actually give a shit about someone who can't afford my product.

I can't afford a Ferrari, but that doesn't mean they should cut me a break and lower the cost just because of that. If they did that, they would de-value their product and it would be worth less money...what about those guys who paid regular price? Shouldn't they be allowed to retain value in their purchases? Why should they have to pay more just because they can when someone who can't afford it, pays less, simply because they can't?

My magic solution? Like I said in my second post. If YOU want to produce and sell a digital product, specially online. YOU need to be prepared to protect YOUR copyright.

If YOU aren't going to take the time to protect YOUR copyright. YOU should either stfu about people committing copyright infringement, or gtfo of this business.

Plain and simple. :2 cents:

It's not the local authorities job to police copyright infringement. Anyone producing digital products with copyrights should know that. Right? If you have copyrighted material, you should understand the copyright law? I mean, it only makes sense right?

Therefore, if we pretend that everyone here producing copyrighted material knows the copyright law (lol yeah right) and they understand they have to protect their own copyright because it's not anyone elses responsibility other than the copyright holder's.

Nope, instead we're on an industry board. An industry who's sole business is selling digital copyrighted material. In a thread discussing copyright infringement. Where almost all of the posters have made comments that directly conflict with how the copyright law and system works. Funny isn't it? This whole industry revolves around copyrighted material, and almost no one understands the copyright system.

The U.S. Government or police don't need to step in and save you. The laws don't need to be rewritten, and new ones don't need to be made. The laws and system are already in place. You just need to educate yourselves for one second and then use that system to protect your copyright.

You truely do not understand the scope of the problem.

it would take hundreds of thousands of workers at these 'private policing companies' to dilligently work their fingers to the bone 24 hours a day 7 days a week - and they might be effective. - now tell me how 'cheap' this service will be.

There are countries where the pirate organizations can legally ignore the United States DMCA procedures. And these 'private policing companies' have NO power over them.

A global organization with the authority and jurisdiction to enforce a global law on copyright protection issues - with financial and criminal penalties for the infringers (users, hosts, and ISPs) - is the only solution. Only then will the copyright holders and the 'private policing companies' have a chance of keeping up with the epidemic.

just my :2 cents:

.

see my previous post - it is impossible for a copyright holder to police the entire global net for infringers.

new laws and enforcements are required.

.

What sites do you run again?

If your partner company is run by computer scientist they don't need to have people clicking on things! thats how Google did it thats how MS did it, they have computer scientist working! there is big difference between havening Intelligent systems chasing the pirate and just some IT guys surfing the web. the costs are mostly 3 digit per brand per month.

So tell me something how does the technology find the content to begin with? Filename? Digital info? What?

I am only aware of the one we use and I can't really give you any technical detail, and that is for business continuity, but to put it simply it monitors all the hubs and all the sources in parallel and discovers new activities then it starts the investigation. Last week I asked the guys to run a test on A well known brand like RK and apparently it found 5 different site-rips on on 4 different open forums which have had quite a lot of downloads. that is not counting in the torrents or the tubes which are much easier to monitor. we ARE GOING TO PUT A CASE STUDY up in here and our website soon and you can have look at the stats on there.
I am not trying to promote our service here but merely pointing out that if we all cooperate we can at least slow the piracy down to a 2001 level!

so why don't you show us all, in the fair use provisions, that it is the content producers 'responsibility' to ensure that every consumer has access to the product that they bought - for the rest of their lives.

as the consumer it is YOUR responsibility to safeguard your purchase through private and personal backups - if you lose your original and all your backups - then you can buy another. simple.

wtf makes you think that you or anyone else is so fucking entitled?


pay attention to the " private and personal backups" portion above - because that IS addressed in the fair use provisions

.

So let me get this straight. You feel that new laws and enforcements will help YOU protect YOUR copyright. Better than the current copyright laws.

How?

Right now, there are all the laws in place to protect your copyrighted material. YOU just have to do it YOURSELF. Because they're YOUR copyrights.

Do you somehow believe that the law will change to make the police do something about it instead? Explain to me what new law could be made exactly, and then how it will magically to improve the current law in place.

I mean really, do you think the police are just going to snap their fingers. Get a thousand more officers per city. Those officers are just going to telepathically know what site owns what copyrighted material and will then go scouring through the bowels of the web to find people committing copyright infringement?

I can see it now. David Jones of the LAPD. New copyright infringement specialist. Assigned to bigasstittiesinyourface.com. He works 8 hour days, on the tax payers dime going out and finding any website infringing on bigasstittiesinyourface.com copyrights. Why does he do this you ask? Because the webmaster of bigasstittiesinyourface.com decided it wasn't his own job to protect his own copyrights, it was the government's job. Oh, and never mind copyright infringement isn't a criminal case, it's a civil case. David Jones doesn't mind, He's there for you! He'll also do your laundry and scrub your toilet if you need it.

I sell oranges on the side of the highway. Since they have not yet invented an "orange coping device". Thus, my product can't be replicated by the ever present produce pirates.

I'd switch over to digital media, but you know, there's no such thing as copyright laws so what would I do to protect my goods?

lol - talking to you is like talking to my EX's (or giddyboy) - you just spin anything to an extreme to try and justify your beliefs.

thousands of officers in every city is not required, tasked with their own personal website to monitor - just a central global agency with the authority and jurisdiction to act upon submitted DMCAs (or whatever new form is devised) - they can keep a record on infringers - and enforce the removals (if the infringer is not cooperating) - and identify repeat infringers through a central database so that their asses can first pay monetary compensation, and in extreme cases, get their asses thrown in jail somewhere.

it is called - needing to force people to be responsible for their actions - and be accountable - cause the fuckers obviously can't do it themselves.

don't try to make it seem to be something it is not

unless you are giddyboy's fake nick - that I would understand.

.

i have no idea why people keep discussing with gideongallery - it's useless, you much more likely talk a cow into committing suicide than getting him to admit that he's wrong :2 cents:

or at least accepting that content owners might have a different opinion than him - i think he has time shifted himself into another universe already

... So you want to create a whole new section of the government that handles copyrights.
I guess that wouldn't be anything like the current U.S. Copyright Office?

... Then you want the police to file a civil case of copyright infringement against someone for you. Because you feel somehow a police officer doing it for you will somehow turn the case in your favor?

... Or you simply want copyright infringement to become a criminal case instead of a civil case. So you can focus the attention of the police force (who are already obviously up to their neck in REAL work) to put copyright infringers behind bars.

... And of course, you say yourself it would be utterly impossible for someone to police the global net and enforce their copyright. But some how, making copyright infringement criminal instead of civil. Will just automagically make it possible to sniff out the copyright infringers and find them. Then, it will also automagically make it easier to have them arrested and thrown in jail.

Is that the basis of your great idea?

Right now, copyright infringement is a civil case. A copyright holder, must seek out infringement of their copyrights and then take action through civil court.

You think,
1. There's too much internet, and no person could patrol the vast majority of it enough.
2. Somehow, legal action isn't effective and people committing copyright infringement get away.
3. Copyright infringers need to be put in jail, rather than pay the monetary compensation for the copyright infringement.

Now, you claim through new laws.
1. There would suddenly be less internet to patrol. Or that a police force would somehow be able to just "know" that a piece of digital material on a website, was copyrighted, and to someone else somewhere. They would also some how know who that copyright would actually belong to, and then be able to work up the documents to prove this, and then arrest the person.
2. With the new law, it would suddenly provide better jurisdiction. Because you feel the legal system can't get to people through civil actions. But it would somehow be able to get to them if it was criminal instead. Because the legal system only works with criminal action, the civil side is just all screwed up.
3. Somehow committing copyright infringement shouldn't mean monetary compensation to the copyright holder. It should instead cause for the person committing it to be put in jail. Since obviously, if the law makes it criminal with jail time as the consequence. The crime will end and no one will ever commit it again.

I mean really, your idea just makes so much sense. I can't find any inconsistency in the logic of it. Surely we should petition the U.S. Copyright Office to make the changes you've mentioned. It'll fix the problem overnight!

It's really not that hard to grasp.

Internet Piracy is not stealing, it is not theft. It is copying, it is copyright infringement.

Copyright owners already have a legal system in place to protect and manage their copyrights and fight copyright infringement.

Making copyright infringement criminal instead of civil doesn't grant you any more "power" in the legal system against someone. In fact, you then have less power because you then have to rely on the police filing the case instead of you being able to do it yourself.

ummm ... no. I am tempted to say 'learn a little comprehension with your reading skills' - but I won't

I support and advocate the ACTA initiatives. Thats a proposed global treaty - it doesn't create a "governmental section " - I would rather see it as a United Nations thing than a department under the control of any single government. I certainly don't want the U.S. Copyright Office in control of it.

And I see how you state that they 'handle' copyrights, inferring that they enforce copyrights. They approve, register, and verify copyrights in a dispute - they do not enforce punitive actions against infringers - and they certainly do NOT have global control and jurisdiction now do they?

Copyright and copyright enforcement is a global issue - not a U.S. issue - think outside the box.

again, the comprehension thing - but I won't bring that up.

I want a centralized global tracking point - not police involvement at all (well, until an infringer proves he is worthy of their attention). I want to submit a copy of my DMCA (or whatever form is devised) to this new (ACTA) organization., so that when I am ignored, or have to submit 20 (or 1,000) a day to the same pirate/sharing website, every single day of the year - I will have the backing of a global enforcement bureau to make things right. I will have someone on my side that can force the bastards to pay attention. And one that has the jurisdiction and authority to take the site down if they are flagrant repeat offenders.


again - no (for the most part).

when they make a mistake, or a 'rouge designer' 'accidentally' uses a copyrighted image of mine - I can do the same thing that we do today plus submit a copy to a central organization. Mistakes do happen. Nothing changes.

But when they do it everyday (as will be evidenced by the growing mountain of DMCA copies in their centralized file) - or post siterips and continually engage in behaviour outside of legitimate fair use - then the local police may be called in. Its no different than how the people that duplicate DVD's are treated - they are simply infringing on copyright - but the police are called in - aren't they? Again - nothing changes except for additional centralized tracking (with authority and jurisdiction to step in and enforce if necessary).


your spin is out of control - again.

They would not be actively policing - I would - as would every other content producer out there - there would just be an additional central database to identify flagrant and continual infringers. To hold a PERSON accountable - and responsible.


No, mY words are the basis - not your 'spin' on my words - and my words are my opinion - not like I'm making the law here.

Again - just your spin on my words - why did you get 'rather than pay' instead of 'pay first and jail the repeat assholes who just don't get it' from my words

you are incorrect in your interpretations

I think if you understand what I am saying above - you now know that this is not what I am saying.

The copyright holder will still pursue the infringer - it will however be tracked and an ever-growing file will emerge on some of them.

Spin and re-spin. The civil side is ineffectual as it is - I'm looking for some beefing up.

you keep saying this - but I never did. Only in the cases of the most flagrant abusers should jail time be happening - just like it is today with DVD dupers. Make a copy for your Mom and no one cares - Make 10,000 copies for all your 'friends' - the Law cares.

You really show that you are from the U.S. (or are trying to make it seem that you are)

I could give a fuck about the U.S. Copyright Office - they are clerks - simply approving copyright applications, filing them, and providing documentation and verification of the validity of a copyright during a dispute. Nothing more. Surely you do know this?

I speak of a Global treaty and agreement. One that not only the U.S. government adheres to - but that the entire world (as much as that is possible) adheres to. A treaty that can be enforced. A treaty that will provide for the tracking of offenders so that punitive actions can be taken on flagrant and repeat offenders if necessary. (first monetary - then jail if you don't learn your lesson)

The current system was put in place to catch the occasional mistake - not to deal with a group of people who run thousands of sites out of untouchable countries. The laws need to be updated to take care of what it all has become - not what it was.

If IBM used a copyright image of mine and I DMCA them - they take it down and don't do it again. When Rapidscum gets my DMCA they 'may' take it down, but then put it right back up again, and again, and again - with no fear of reprisals.

I am advocating that they be made fearful of those reprisals - with a system in place that can enforce that fear.


And again, the U.S. Government or any section thereof will NOT be in control of.

the copyright system in place is not global - nor is it a deterrent - and in its present form, pretty much ineffectual.

that should be easily apparent
even to yourself.

I'm not relying on the police - nor demanding instant criminal charges - only the big boys and the repeaters need fear the police.

That's your answer right there. A commonly accepted definition of *theft* is: : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

Sharing/copying intellectual property, while illegal in some cases, is not stealing so stop defining it as such and you will come closer to sleeping at night..

Now piracy itself is something else entirely and the generally accepted pirate's code is taking something that YOU don't deserve but the pirate does. These things are difficult for non-pirates to understand so don't lose any sleep over it

Ok what a long bunch of text that says nothing really (I skimmed through it which is more than most folks here will give you)

but seriously this world is in a global economic crisis, wars devastate entire nations, floods, tsunamis, horrible viruses of every flavor, the usual subhuman rape and crime in the streets, hunger, orphans, sex slaves, child abuse and your pandora's box wish is to have a global policing force for duplication of media??? :( Are you fucking nuts man? GO FUCK YOURSELF!!!! :321GFY :helpme

One thing has become obvious -
Never, ever sell any content, software, design work, or anything else to some of the
people posting in this thread - they have publicly admitted that they will "share" it
with 10,000 of their closest friends, damaging your ability to earn a living.

You may not think so, but when you illegally copy content, software, designs, etc.,
you are taking food from the mouth of someone's kids. You are a thief, just as much
as if you broke into the creator's home and robbed them. Your actions have the same
effect whether you steal from me with a gun or with a hard drive.

No, the better idea is to adapt to a new world, and package your product/service in a way that will be difficult to copy or duplicate which yes by the very nature of this universe is difficult to do. You seriously think the guy/gal that copies your stuff to feed *HIS* family will give yours the first cut? FAIL..

Exactly! We are arguing with SCUMBAGS here, who feel they are entitled to free porn.

They do not produce anything themselves, and therefore cannot grasp the idea that content costs money, time, and risk to produce. Money, time, and risk that was NOT spent so it can be illegally shared across the internet for FUCKING FREE!

One day the entire game will change again, and we can all look back at this debate and determine if it was win-able from either side.

In hindsight, the early tube guys should have been "handled properly" early on!

There is really no point in bumping this thread any further.

I worry about all those things as well - and support initiatives that combat them as well.

where the fuck do you get off stating that piracy is the only thing I put my efforts towards.

maybe you are not capable of directing your attentions to more than one issue at a time but don't project your deficiencies onto me.

and just to be fair - go fuck YOURSELF - :winkwink:

so thats what you would like is it? just deal with it (adapt), no point in trying to stop it, "it is what it is" attitude.

well if the fuckers don't care about my family getting the first cut - what makes you think I should care about their cut?

packaging and delivering in a way that is 'difficult' to do stops nothing - and if a package can be made - a package can be opened - punishing those who are caught doing it is all we have - do deter future wouldbe pirates. That is the way of ALL laws - they are implemented after the fact, after the perpetrator is caught. Locks and alarms are put on cars and houses - the people who steal and break in still have laws to face. I only ask for the same.

.

lol.. United Nations having a global copyright enforcement division. That is so utterly ridiculous I'm ashamed to have even been apart of it's discussion.

So instead, to get things back on track. I'll simply quote myself since my point still stands.

you misunderstand as well

I do understand copyright infringement vs theft - I well know the difference - I have read the laws as best I could due to many discussions with giddyboy - I am now at the point where I figure I have read more than I ever should have had to.

do not assume that I do not "understand something so simple and basic like COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT"

do not assume that I don't know the difference between stealing a physical product and copying a digital product.

do not assume that I do not protect myself and my copyrighted content as best I can with the tools that are available.

BUT

I advocate change
I advocate that digital property attain the same status and protection as the 'hard' goods enjoy
I advocate a global recognition of copyright holders rights
I advocate a global Law/Treaty recognizing copyright holders rights
I advocate that a global body be created to draw up and enforce a new way



copyright laws started when there were only hard goods - and only "hard good" ways to 'copy' (books, art, etc)

copyright laws evolved when tapes were used for music, and cable TV came about allowing for a good quality copy (giddyboys VCR arguments) - they were created under the assumption that a copy would be a physical product made from a broadcast signal - and made provisions for private 'fair use'

copyright laws evolved again (more fair use expansions - DMCA - etc) when the Internet/CDs/DVDs happened - but they did not envision the rampant copying that would happen - they were modified at that time to handle a low volume of 'mistakes' and protect large corporations from liability when they accidentally used a copyrighted image

now I believe that it is time that they evolve again - to stop the rampant nature of 'copying' and distribution that the 'new' Internet infrastucture allows.



get that? - "I believe" and "I advocate" and indeed "I argue for, at length, on the Internet forums" are all my right to free speech - and I shall continue to exercise those rights for what I believe in. Just as you, giddyboy, and everyone else has their right to.

I don't tell giddyboy to stop his plans - to do something else with his business model. I will lay out my thoughts on it - I will try and convince him, he will try and convince me - its all good.

If you don't like it feel free to continue to voice your opinion - I will continue to read it.

but don't ever assume you know what I do and do not know or understand.

k?

:thumbsup

It is immoral indeed. I respect your sympathy for fellow IT people.

There is a saying, and it goes like this, "The true measure of a person's character is what he does when nobody's looking, not when everybody is looking."

So, people like to steal and do crimes when supposedly nobody is watching.

What is this Gestapo of copyright protection you speak of? Common, this world has real problems.. protecting your ASSets is not one of them

I blame their sorry ass parents for not teaching them the difference between right and wrong. Some people in this thread thread clearly have no clue. Just ignorant, trash people that were probably raised by fucking monkeys.

lol - "Gestapo"

are the laws against illegally obtaining and distribution of hard goods "Gestapo"?

No, and neither will the laws against copyright infringement and distribution of infringing digital products be "Gestapo".

nice try at the misdirection and the insertion of an inflammatory word.

Human beings are capable of tackling more than one problem at a time.

one effort does not eliminate or superscede the other.

.