New anti-piracy system will hit U.S. Internet users next week

reply to post by roadgravel

Being that stealing is taking something that does not belong to you or you do not own!l My question is If I go and buy a music CD, do I own it? If I own it, don't I have a right to allow my friends to listen to it? If I choose to give it to someone is that against the law?

On the other hand, If I don't own the CD, and I basically rented the material on it, and for some reason it gets scratched and broken, then it should be replaced at no charge. Would you agree? If I go to a concert and sneak in, then I agree it is theft of services. But I should have the right to do with what I want if I own or paid for it..

reply to post by dreamingawake


Hey Dreaming a question for you:

Since when has an IP address been sufficient evidence to accuse someone of copyright infringement/piracy? And wouldn't/shouldn't that kill this initiative?

It's best to just move to another operating system; Windows is such a poor choice; unless you can find an old copy of 98 or xp and sew it up tight.

Windows 8 is a beta for a cloud based operating system coming soon; where the software client is just stored on the computer system, not the actual software...well guess what that's going to eventually mean? All of your personal, private or other data will be stored in the cloud online...and not an actually physically on your computer at all.

Many software companies where the program costs a couple of grand; do this already as an anti-piracy security measure already...your name and password will be nothing more than a network security key for access to your files.

That's the trend; they are trying to move everything into the cloud...who needs to come with a search warrant, or back door registries, for your hard drives and computer when it's all hanging in the cloud? Yeah no rainbows to look forward too there out of this one.

The media in general, be it videogames, cinema, movies or music, make more money now than ever before. If there was some stagnation its because there was a massive depression, at least among certain social classes and the fact that people kept being asked to work a wee bit more for a wee bit less and a wee bit more next week, for a wee bit less again. So yeah, there are people whom simply do not have the spare time to make the movies.

thought i pop in and say, it is the first day of this , see what happens from now on , www.dailydot.com... although, y tube has it as well as others say no post past with out written consent, found a few news links that said that, can not even post there site, as far as i can tell, but you can look for your self , was looking up cyber security threats, new video, PBS nova Frontline, and that is when i ran across it using yahoo, could not book make it that in it self was odd.

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus

Originally posted by ausername
Forget the arguments as to whether stealing is right or wrong... right?

Is there any reason for people to pause and consider the moral, ethical and perhaps spiritual implications of voluntarily stealing "digital" materials "just because they can?

Stealing is stealing... No?

What does it mean to "own" something? We would need a clear definition of that in an objective sense to then define what "stealing" was, so your question would get pretty philosophical pretty quickly.

Ill tell you what the PTB and large corporations consider as "ownership" though... if they can TAKE it by whatever means works, they own it.

Seems they simply dont like others playing by their own rules.

Nothing philosophical about it. Stealing is stealing. On the internet or anywhere else. Why do people find it so hard to be honest?

Originally posted by tluna1
reply to post by dreamingawake

 

I am sooo not tech savy or anything so i am a little confused. Please bare with me.
What is the difference in me buying a dvd and loaning it to my friends to watch, OR making it available online for my friends to watch? Isnt it the same thing?

I agree with you, to a degree. I was thinking the same thing: if i, for instance, buy a book of poetry or a magazine, and photocopy a poem and an article to give to my friend to read, that's really not against the law.

HOWEVER, with digital material it violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which basically states that it is a crime/violation of copyright to make a copy of ANY copyrighted digital material that is not one's own (which technically also includes making backup copies of content one has legally purchased). A little different than letting a friend "borrow" you DVD. But i get and mostly agree with what you said.

But again, there is the fact, addressed by another, about the volume issue. If i made, say 1000 or 10000 copies of a poem or article and distributed to people, there would likely be an issue by the copyright holders. I could "try* to claim fair use because it's not for profit, but then i used not just a portion of the work but ALL of it, and it could be argued i am taking away the potential profit to the creator. I could argue education/research/etc purpose, but i doubt that would fly.

This is one of the issue with downloads. Once one copy is made it is simultaneously copied over and over. In p2p it's not ONE copy that is floating around, it's practically the exponential duplication by the very process of sharing. THAT is one of issues copyright holders have.

But hey, I'm completely with the "it's not stealing it's sharing" crowd. It IS sharing. If anything it's "receiving stolen property," not stealing in itself, even though the original was usually never "stolen" from the copyright owner, but bought.

The problem with this anti-piracy thing is that there are LEGAL downloads via P2P, so i do not see any way for this to target only the "copyrighted" content.

reply to post by dreamingawake


How is copying stealing? How is lending a music cd not stealing? The end listener hasn't paid for the music but is using the material

Aazadan, I do understand that it costs more to make the games of today. Most of the reason is the complexity, but some of the other reason is that alot of it went way too corporate and there are job classes in it that do not need to be there. What ever the reason, its a dirty tactic to charge people a second time to play online just because they bought a used game (they don't even list it on the box!). I can see them making you pay $25 just to play ANY part of the game at some point, why stop at one cookie when no one cares you have your hand in the cookie jar. That said, at some point, if life gets tough for auto makers, will they charge for A/C activation on used cars and just stop there and not go for the radio and heated seats?

At least with PS3 piracy is not as big as a deal anymore because you can not get online with a stolen copy, without the real fear of getting banned from the feature they want to charge people who buy used games extra for. In my opinion they will take as much as they can in the dirtiest way untill they see the sales start hurting rather then complaints. Its like the govt. and taxes at this point.

reply to post by dreamingawake


I actually called my ISP not long after a Judge ruled DL wasn't breaking the law till the file was played. Pointed that out them and then pionted out they are illegally tracking me accross the internet and sharing that info with another company. They connected me to there legal department and that was the last I ever heard from them.

Well, I have a few points regarding this so without any more adeu here is my first point:

I think this is a pretty slippery slope based on this....

How long before everything, anywhere on the internet becomes intellectual property of someone? When this happens you can kiss goodbye internet freedom of speech because it will no longer exist in my thinking.

Point 2:

Back when I was a teenager, and in my young adult years (late 80's early 90's) I like many many others made mix tapes (casettes). None of this was that huge a deal back then, and I think they are targetting the wrong crowd imo. The people that they should be going after are the people that are making profit from selling bootleg copies, not Joe Schmo that just happens to have made a burnt CD etc.

I can personally say that if I liked a band, back then and even today (I know people that have no qualms about burning CD's to listen to music in thier vehicles) I would support the band by buying the albums. Who wants a crappy burnt CD when you can get a factory pressed CD with the album insert etc.? If I like a band, I will support them. I think the thing that is too often overlooked is this, when someone shares thier art it is often times beneficial by way of exposure. I have listened to mix tapes before, heard a song and said something like "Wow, who are they? They have an amazing sound!" A few weeks later I would either be in a store, or on ebay (these days) buying the artists work. That is just my $.02 regarding that.

I understand an artist being upset about bootleggers, they are truly scumbags and should be gone after. I just think that going after someone who is making a few burnt CD's to listen to in thier car or someone who make a few mix tapes for a friend as being petty, again just my opinion. If art was not meant to be shared and shown then I am forced to ask, why did you become an artist?

Part A


1- Peer to peer downloading is not the same thing as theft. It's just not. Nor is it even, in many cases, the same thing as loss of a sale. Though admittedly, it does sometimes equate to the latter.

Let's say I bought a copy of a Nine Inch Nails album (on CD) when it came out in 1994. Let's say I've played that album so much that it ended up scratched or lost, and I ended up buying another copy. Eventually two more copies (aside from the original). Let's say instead of buying the same CD a fourth time, I download a copy. Is this stealing? Is this a lost sale? I have heard of / seen this exact same thing happening. Some people like to preview an album before they purchase it. I'd say this goes doubly so for expensive software-- the trial versions of which are often incomplete


2- Coincidentally, just last night I read an excellent article on this subject written by Courtney Love. Generally her tone is anti-piracy, while at the same time not entirely seeming anti-file-sharing. In fact, she is of the opinion that record companies are the worst offenders of "piracy" as they often end up paying the artists little to nothing while they get rich and defend "their" intellectual property like rabid junkyard dogs.

If this is an issue you find interesting, I'd recommend checking out this artist's perspective:

www.salon.com...


3- As Ms Love points out in that article, these people have not given proof that downloading has lead to decreased sales. It may have even given a boost to the recording industry....

.... an industry which for years has tried to sucker both artists and consumers out of more money than they had the right to. This is karma if ever I've seen it. For those of you around my age or older-- remember how when CD's came out they promised that prices would quickly drop? Does anyone remember how long it took CD prices to drop... by just a little bit? They actually got sued over this issue...


4- I'm not saying I don't think all these people don't deserve to get paid for their work. They do, obviously. And they have been, for the most part. Show me that downloads have been hell for this industry, and maybe I'll get behind your crusade. But that's not what I've seen. What I've seen is a bunch of fat cats trying to stick it to the little guy, yet again. And on that note....




Part B

I've seen quite a lot of mention of Civil War and Revolution around here (and elsewhere) over the last couple months. And I have a hard time seeing how that would go down, unless The Government were the ones to initiate it. And despite what some believe about the government's unwillingness to use chemical or biological weapons against its own people (hint: they would probably hire soldiers from other countries to do the dirty work) I have difficulty seeing "the people" winning that one.

On the other hand-- I'm almost surprised we haven't already seen a revolt against the corporatocracy. These large corporations... the ones making billions from record sales, and internet service, and feeding us news, and advertising, cars, oil, energy, pills pills pills, and oh-so-"low" interest rates on funds created from thin air-- the companies that drive us into debt, have us declared "psychologically aberrant" for being sad or distracted to live in a messed up world, try to penalize us for "sharing," and who will only grow more powerful and all-encompassing as time goes on.

This is the real threat to our nation. It has been for the better part of the last couple / few generations. Monopolies are supposed to be illegal, no? Ask yourself: are they really? Or just on paper? How much more should they be allowed to get away with? How much more power should they be allowed to gain? "Nothing," would be my vote-- and the vote of any sane and truly aware person (who isn't biased for some reason). However, given the entire system we operate in has been owned and run by them for as long as any of us have been alive, and the system is set up to protect these corporations and their disgusting little servants-- most actions against them (beyond organized boycotts-- which of course don't work when the corp has a virtual monopoly) would be illegal, and thus you'd have to put yourself, and your well-being on the line in order to take that stand... which really (like a boycott) would be meaningless unless the effort was massive and organized. But of course, that won't happen...

.... we have been split into too many different voices, different views and opinions.. and most of us value personal safety and comfort above all else... including securing a better future for ourselves and our children. Of course... we can't really be blamed for that... we've been "programmed" to be the people and the society we are. Via the schools and the media "they" have owned for many decades.

So what's the solution?

I wish I knew...

Lets remember- FOX (and all of hollywood) was started by Pirates escaping New York so they could avoid paying the fee for the Movie camera copyright.

Lets remember, studios have claimed that the Lord of the rings series has made no money and Star Wars has made no money to avoid paying royalties to actors and (in the case of LOTR) Christopher Tolkien.

Lets remember that the studies done show that "Pirates" actually buy more than non Pirates.

There have been some good points made here... The Mafia is shooting themselves in the foot.
Oh and VPN baby =)

reply to post by dreamingawake


This won't do anything.

What is to stop people from just going to blockbuster and ripping DVDs/Blurays?

What about Ad sponsored content? Totally legal.

reply to post by ausername


It is not stealing. It is the exact same thing as recording a song off the radio. Or a movie from the tv. There is absolutely no difference. I pay the ISP for ability to get on my new fangled radio. But then I hear a song or see a movie and if I choose to keep it, there is no valid reason why I can't. I have purchased 100 DVDs I would not have, but did because I watched the movie for free online and thought it was good enough to add to my collection.

There is no way on Earth that can be called stealing. Copyright is the temporary right to be the sole copy maker of an idea or song. At least it used to be temporary. No one with a soul can argue that copyright is fair or even close to being what it was intended. How can anyone say a song or movie is inherently more valuable than the Ipad or cell phone? Yet a patent is only 17 years. And copyright is for life of the author plus 70 years?!?!? How is that a law anyone can respect? Why aren't copyright and patent terms the same? It is the exact same thing. I respect patent law because it makes sense and the term is reasonable. I will never respect copyright law as long as the term is so indescribably idiotic. And no one else should either. After all, it is NOT stealing. If it was then theft laws would apply. They do not.

I always fall back to the youtube concern.

Plenty of videos and such slap on copywrited music and the like...will such places suddenly be expanded into once the feet are in the ground? I don't see any reasonable argument why it wouldn't overall.

My conspiracy brain tends to then move into this being just another tactic by the RIAA to remove places like youtube and the like so they can once again have a monopoly on how music is listened to.

I understand the desire to clamp down on things like game and program piracy..and I agree with this stance to a point (albeit I am a hypocrite..but I do buy what I like). I am actually concerned about effects that reach out of the general target such things are wrapped up in.

Originally posted by Robonakka
reply to post by ausername

 

It is not stealing. It is the exact same thing as recording a song off the radio. Or a movie from the tv. There is absolutely no difference. I pay the ISP for ability to get on my new fangled radio. But then I hear a song or see a movie and if I choose to keep it, there is no valid reason why I can't. I have purchased 100 DVDs I would not have, but did because I watched the movie for free online and thought it was good enough to add to my collection.

That's all fine and dandy for a discussion about video and music (although not accurate, but whatever), but of course piracy also hits programs and games...now that cannot be simply removed with the radio analogy.

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
reply to post by dreamingawake

 

This won't do anything.

What is to stop people from just going to blockbuster and ripping DVDs/Blurays?

1) Blockbuster is still around? I thought they went belly up for the most part.

2) the ripping of such is not the target. That is "old school" piracy, back when people didn't give a toss. Piracy is now to a point where even the most dim of society can simply click a button and voila..full blown packages. The industries don't care about the people whom have to rent stuff and use complex tools to get the free goodies for themselves only. Back in those days, piracy was considered this high tech cool thing only the truly clued up could do (movies like hackers and such showing them as some fringe elite group). Now..Joe the plumber can do it with ease..and that goes from cool fringe elite to mainstream leeching. That is a problem.

In europa, we've been receiving that kind of emails for years, it's not a new stuff for owners of a copyright do download the content it owns to get ip addresses of the other peers on the tacker...
Btw, it's just some additionnal food for our "Junk Mail" folder, but laws aren't necessarely the same than in US, and we may have a few more liberties left than the US does.
EDIT: AFAIK, they can only use this approach to encourage you to admit your "crime". technically, it's not the files themselfes that are illegal... it's using them without owning a licence.
Can they prove that you don't own a legit licence for a game you downloaded "illegally" for example ? I Myself downloaded several times games that I legitimally own just because I'm too lazy to search for my original disc...
Plus, if you download something that you download into a format including DRMs preventing you to use your legal file on the device you want to use it, you have legitim right to download the same file in a less-restricted format, you still own the licence for it... No matter what.
So there's basically no way to incriminate someone just basing on what he's downloading.

ACTA and PIPA failed, they're just trying the only few remaining possible approaches...
No big deal here if you ask me.

reply to post by johngrissom


"We are in a crisis where companies are going bankrupt, they will not F-UP the chance of a customer bailing on the ISP. This Copyright Alert System is nothing different and you posting this is making it more sensationalized than it needs to be. "



yes they will, cox cable will suspend account, i know they have done it to me. i had to call them and blah blah blah , but i got one on them next time they do it to me ill bail on them.