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

reply to post by NihilistSanta


You're not suggesting that it's better for an artist/creator to get little or nothing for their work? The world has changed drastically in the last 70 years ... whereas long ago art and music where pretty much something you had to witness in person being performed or presented by the creator ... if you even knew about it, and could get even to where it was located physically.

It's just not right that someone could spend years creating something beautiful/clever/useful and then it be instantly available to everyone on the planet with an internet connection to enjoy (or benefit from) for free without the creators permission.

Originally posted by roadgravel
This seems like a backwards approach.

Shouldn't they be having the content removed at the source site so it cannot be downloaded over and over. Sounds like a way to just keep repeating the 'your a bad person' message.

If anything the uploads would be monitored. When the material appears, zap it. At the legit sites, a payment would be needed to access it. If some person just loads it to share then attack the problem at upload time which is the person starting the whole fiasco.

Seems to be following the typical war on anything plan of chasing end user, not the source.

well most forms of piracy are torrents..which files arent hosted on sites.. they are hosted on the users computers.

reply to post by threewisemonkeys


your analogy of car copying fits exactly. Look at all the hardware and software available that allows copying. We have DVD R recorders, DVD ripping software, Audio ripping software, Sound converters, video converters. List goes on and on, but if you use a p2p program to share those you're suddenly a pirate. Look back when we had cassette players as a young teen I used to record the radio stations at night onto cassette tape so I could listen to it during the day. Then friends would like a copy so I had a dual cassette deck that can copy tape to tape. How does that make me a pirate? That's exactly what the hardware was designed to do. Record right from the radio or right from another source. You make a copy of a store bought tape that a friend couldn't afford to own. Back then they bitched about it too, but the idea of copyright was copying the music then SELLING the music. Once you have made a profit of selling your copies you then broke copyright laws. It's like you said if you buy a copying machine and copy a page out of a library book does that make you a pirate? If that's the case then maybe we should all sue the state and DMV's and other offices for copying our ID's. Birth certificates, SS cards they all have on file. Sue them 100,000 per copy LOL.

reply to post by braydenf


The trackers are public facing.so won't they become the target of this search for who they see as violators. Seem like the mother load for the internet police.

reply to post by DarKPenguiN


Some games if it wasn't for sharing and p2p you wouldn't be able to even find it. They don't sell anymore unless you happen to find one off of Amazon. Look at console games. Again all of those would be history if it wasn't for the Emulator ROMZ community that was sharing and copying them. Even back then those emulator romz websites was said to be WAREZ PIRATES. Try to find a working console and your favorite games, it's virtually impossible. File sharing also preserves stuff. Look at China they sell and make lots of cheap knock offs and then sells it back to the US. lol

reply to post by sean


fun that you point about emulators and roms...
It's a good occasion to point the fact that without that kind of "piracy", some videogames consoles that are retrocompatible now wouldn't be, and that we wouldn't have "legal emulators" on some systems like Virtual console for nintendo. Well, those emulators stinks compared to open source classic ones, but it's still better than nothing.

Piracy also promoted mp3 democratisation at some point, plus mpeg4 video format...
So, unlike what they try to make us believe, it's not so negative for the industry. They should just consider it as some form of "free advertisement" if you ask me. after all, many people discovered things thru piracy that they later bought (that was my case several times) that they wouldn't have known without it. and in the opposite situation, not each pirated title is a "lost sell" (sorry if wrong term, don't know the english expression, but I think you got the point...).

Originally posted by Ghostfreak1
reply to post by sean

 

fun that you point about emulators and roms...
It's a good occasion to point the fact that without that kind of "piracy", some videogames consoles that are retrocompatible now wouldn't be, and that we wouldn't have "legal emulators" on some systems like Virtual console for nintendo. Well, those emulators stinks compared to open source classic ones, but it's still better than nothing.

Piracy also promoted mp3 democratisation at some point, plus mpeg4 video format...
So, unlike what they try to make us believe, it's not so negative for the industry. They should just consider it as some form of "free advertisement" if you ask me. after all, many people discovered things thru piracy that they later bought (that was my case several times) that they wouldn't have known without it. and in the opposite situation, not each pirated title is a "lost sell" (sorry if wrong term, don't know the english expression, but I think you got the point...).

Lost sale....we all knew what you meant so not a big deal ghost

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

But I guess that's fair? How dare I think that I should make money through my own creativitity? What an idiot!

If you created the work out of greed; a lust for the fleeting and hollow acquisition of material "wealth", it has no ultimate value to begin with, so receiving nothing in exchange for nothing is an equitable exchange. As you suggest, it would indeed be idiotic to assume you should receive something for nothing.

If youve created the work out of a love for beauty, creativity, and love itself; things of true and eternal persistence thus value, youll receive more than you could possibly imagine.

edit on 2/24/2013 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)

I'm with cactivus on this one…. Go play some shows and suffer for your art god damn it! I guaranteed it'll make you write better songs and the joy you receive when connecting with your audience, who are there to see YOU play the songs YOU wrote is worth more than any money you can glean from this copyright bull dust. Maybe you should encrypt all your music and sell one time keys that only work on their copy. See how many cd's and downloads you'll sell then.

you can bet this will slow the pace of information as well as censor what is deemed sensitive information!
More freedom infringment! I don't mind if it was just censoring software and music but what else will this entail?
Thank God I'm not young and don't have many years to look forward to even more oppression. Good look my children!

reply to post by ausername


Hasn't everyone used a dual recorder from their boom box to make copies of the original or even recorded versions from the radio. Of course with the true labeled cassette you would need to alter certain factions to record.

Even when MTV came out with their pure straight up videos 24 hours a day; many used VHS to record the vids for personal use in the past. I agree with many once you bought it - you own it and should be allowed to do with it what you please.

reply to post by SaturnFX


What about ad sponsored movies?

Its legal and pays royalties to the content owner/studio.

Originally posted by Pinke
I've worked massive amounts of hours, and probably cut ten years off my life at least working media, and I'm not getting any particular piece of the pie. The reason directors and actors get paid a lot is that they are used as a marketing asset. For example, if you get Brad Pitt and Zack Snyder you have a marketing package to get more funds for your movie.

Those funds don't trickle down into post artist's, set crew, and performers pockets a lot of the time.

I know performers and artists that have been working for years and years and are still doing things like showing up free for a Ke$ha video or working 80 hours a week but only cashing in 37 on a regular basis.
...
So much face palm ... I think movie goers only have themselves to blame when only big budget films are screens in force and they complain about it ... or when they say 'are movies getting worse?'

This thread makes me sad. Pinke just hit the nail on the head for you guys, but so often what you NEED to hear is opposite of what you WANT to hear. How the crap does Pinke get 1 star and this gets a bunch?

If you created the work out of greed; a lust for the fleeting and hollow acquisition of material "wealth", it has no ultimate value to begin with, so receiving nothing in exchange for nothing is an equitable exchange. As you suggest, it would indeed be idiotic to assume you should receive something for nothing.

If youve created the work out of a love for beauty, creativity, and love itself; things of true and eternal persistence thus value, youll receive more than you could possibly imagine.

That's beautiful and poetic, but PLEASE wake up to reality. If it has no value, then why do you want a copy of it so bad? Plus, how subjective is that? EVERY business is for profit... if it's not, then it's not a sustainable business. Besides, not everyone in the entertainment industry is a greedy asshole, dude. These days you're an idiot if you become a musician "to make money." In fact, today the entertainment industry is like the 99.999% and the 0.001%. Using Star Wars as justification for downloading 1000 indie films is like raiding your local farmers market in the name of sticking it to Monsanto.

If you're gonna pirate then do so, but then don't complain if everything on TV and the radio is absolute derivative garbage. I can't speak for the film industry, but according to Pinke it's is similar to music-- basically the labels are tightening up more than ever, everything's merging and industry movers and shakers are taking fewer risks than ever. There's no more money to develop an artist, which means skipping on your talented singer friend who "just needs a break" and going for Kreayshawn who can generate millions of views on her own (and subsequently dropping her if the first album flops, which it did). No more working with a band for 4 albums until they blow up larger than life. No money in album sales so now labels do what's called a 360 deal, meaning they take a cut of EVERYTHING an artist sells, not just albums. All of the F-U's to the labels ultimately trickle down to the artists.

You can call this dinosaur rhetoric or whatever, but I'm telling you this is WHY music sucks today. As a musician myself, I'm happy to put out albums for free initially just to get my name out there, but then I need to cut production costs. I can't afford to spend $10,000--a modest budget for a quality indie record with a full band in a recording studio-- several times in a row and give that all away for free just to be heard. So how do I adapt? Now I write and produce 90% of everything on the computer, for free (or initial sunk costs with software etc). So far so good, but I'm a hopeless romantic for a full band and I would love to make this stuff with a group, but even though I love it, it's my creative calling and it's beautiful, at this point in time it's UNSUSTAINABLE!!! The point is, tell me to "get with the times" if I complain, but if YOU complain about "homogenous crap computer music" and too many DJs etc, then right back atcha.

Last point. The car copying scenario is a PERFECT example. Sure, you didn't steal from your neighbor by magically copying the car... you stole from the car company. If their business model is based on selling cars, and they spent an enormous amount of money developing and testing the car so that it's smooth and doesn't freaking explode in your face, then what happens after everyone loves the car so much that they all copy it? The business is forced to cut costs, fires a bunch of people and starts making garbage cars using cheaper parts, outsourcing testing to robots for cheap etc. just to break even with the cost.

Do what you will, but don't complain if it bites you in the ass.

P.S. Not saying it's ALL piracy's fault (incompetent labels, and a greedy tech sector come to mind). But don't act like you're doing anyone any favors!

reply to post by Pinke


I did have an idea that was stolen. I answered an ad for ideas about new tv shows. They produced my idea. I do not get any credit and when I called MTV and asked them about it they told me to sue them. So now everyone watches Buckwild but they will never know it came from my brain. And I won't see a penny for it.

It doesn't really matter to me. I have written several songs and uploaded them to the net in hopes someone will like them.

I just know that copyright as it is now makes no sense. Hell, there may not be a real pace for it on the internet. Since nothing can be viewed online at all unless a copy is made. It is impossible to use the internet and not break copyright law. It is an out dated paradigm.

This.

I just wonder if people would have a problem with a device that can copy everything including food and meds. Every company would lose money right? Every one would have every thing they could ever need and or want that can be copied. I bet something like that would frighten some people worse then nukes!

reply to post by XL5


Everyone will see how crazy this is once 3d printers become sophisticated enough to "pirate" other real physical products. Apparently the "stop all th' downloadin' " cry only makes any sense to digital content creators.

Originally posted by RedParrotHead

You make a good legal point but you can't deny that by file sharing you're negativity effecting file creators monetary profit that could be made from that file (be it music, movies, software whatever) because people no longer have to pay for it.

Oh but I can deny it, and I shall explain why. In order to quantify loss, you must have been in possession of or have a reasonable expectation to own or gain from any particular thing. In the case of music or movies or video games, in order for you to claim loss you must prove I intended to buy it in the first instance, but did not because I could and did download it free of charge instead. If I never intended to buy item x then explain to me where your loss is?

As long as you will never complain about excessive product placement (yes, even in music and software) and/or very amateur entertainment I guess you'll be fine.

I agree. But then if I'm getting it all for free I have no right to moan about the quality of the product. It's as is.

There is no law saying you have to stand in line at a crowded supermarket but it makes life easier if everyone plays by the unwritten rules and quits constantly looking for loopholes to get something for nothing

We don't make the loopholes, we exploit them. If the rules are unwritten then I can choose whether or not they apply to me. If I am doing no harm to you, what concern is it of yours what I do? And please don't insult us by suggesting that people dumb enough to pay, pay more, because it's blatently untrue and amounts to industry propaganda. The purpose of which is to maake you think you're paying for freeloaders while creating an excuse to keep prices inflated far beyond worth. It's called social engineering. The media industry will fleece you at every opportunity, they always have.

I might add that a couple of years ago, the industry themselves hushed up a report (their own), that showed people who downloaded illegally actually spend, on average, 10% more on digital media than the goody two shoes who pay for everything. If I don't like something, it goes in the recycle bin. No loss to anyone. If I like something I've downloaded I'm far more inclined to support the artist by purchasing. I might also recommend it to a friend, who might then go out and purchase it. Or not.This is the 21st century. Money for old rope just doesn't fly anymore.

reply to post by threewisemonkeys


I realize that my opinion that "illegally downloading is wrong" will always be argued against by people that illegally download. For sure there are some gray areas that such folks will always exploit, digital media (and access to it) is relativity new and the laws on the books need to catch up in some places. But the fact remains that unless the artist/record company/software company/movie studio etc are offering it for free - it is illegal. Intellectual Property Theft

I challenge you to truthfully tell me the last 5 illegal downloads that you enjoyed so much that you actually purchased the same content.

reply to post by thedigirati

Copying retail software and handing it to a friend so they can test it is something that has been going on for a long, long time. For the most part, I don't think this was ever excessive. Additionally, if you ever hoped to market something you make, you absolutely had to acquire a legit copy because of the liability issues. Still, it's a problem for companies that think money is being lost. What really led to piracy being a big problem though was its widespread use in OTHER countries. Piraters would also try to sell the pirated copies as legit and so would maek money from their illicit business. One of the methods they used in the beginning years was to require access codes that could be found in a manual. Another trick they used was to require the software cd to be present in the cdrom drive. These things could be worked around by somebody that was patient, so it was not foolproof.

Needless to say, the attempt to require an internet connection to verify a software copy is now what's being used to ensure that your copy is legit. If it's not then you cannot use it. Many are also not allowing you to reinstall the software more than a couple times. If the verification process detects you're not on the original computer, it won't allow you to use the software. If the software is unusable then you have to purchase a new copy. The problem with this is that it's intrusive. You cannot use it without an internet connection. You may not be able to use it if your system is changed dramatically and/or reformatted. Secondly, as others have pointed out, it's much more difficult if impossible to sell your retail copy (for cheap) to others, since there're limitations on re-installation.

Where this is all headed is very predictable. My guess is that someday in the future most software we purchase will be located on server farms. Only the client version of the software will run on our local system. It will be a secured copy of the original, so even if you copy it it won't do you any good. It'll be all about securing an access key that you'll use to logon and use the software.

It's hte goal of companies to not have ot chase after pirates, but instead to prevent it in the first place. The problem is that pirates can still create emulations. They may be able to hack the copies of hte software used locally and emulate the server-side. They can also steal ideas, for example.

The problem boils down to how easy it's to copy things on our computer. Software requires an immense amount of work to create, but it's so easily copied. In hte real world, this is (somewhat) comparable to a book. The value of the book isn't the paper or printing costs; if it were we'd be paying a lot less for a book. The value is the words and the ideas they contain. It's of course harder to copy a book and move it around. With software, the copy function is easypeasy. The only limitation is hte ability to transfer the copy to another computer via dvd's or the internet.

It's like putting a piece of meat in a cage with a lion and telling the lion not to eat it. It's a tough job for the lion. Similarly, the copying being so easy, it's a tough job for pirates to resist. It's even tougher to resist for the end user because they don't have to go through the work of hacking things. The toughest part for them is learning how to click links or how to torrent. I mean, you have to pay for illegal drugs. But when you download software tha'ts not legit, you're not having to pay.

I'm in no wya justifying piracy. I support the idea of server farms. My only point of disagreement is how intrusive it can all be. It can make the experience more cumbersome. At present, I'm not happy with how cumbersome it's. I prefer to play old games because I'm not fond of drm.

For old games and getting them legally I recommend gog.com. No DRM hassle. Most of hte games are 3.99 to 9.99 and all you need is paypal. That's easy to setup for anybody. It's a good deal because a lot of those games have more value in them than you'd expect. It's surprising.

For those out there downloading non-legit copies, I encourage you to stop. Life is better whne you follow the rules and it's better for the people who make things professionally.

I also encourage people to not just buy software from anyone. Some of the copies are pirated and won't have all their functions enabled because their "key" won't be valid. For somebody who's making something professionally like an artist or programmer this is especailly important. When your goal is to sell what you make, you want all the functions and you want a licensed (legit) retail copy.

Originally posted by RedParrotHead
reply to post by threewisemonkeys

 

I realize that my opinion that "illegally downloading is wrong" will always be argued against by people that illegally download. For sure there are some gray areas that such folks will always exploit, digital media (and access to it) is relativity new and the laws on the books need to catch up in some places. But the fact remains that unless the artist/record company/software company/movie studio etc are offering it for free - it is illegal. Intellectual Property Theft

I challenge you to truthfully tell me the last 5 illegal downloads that you enjoyed so much that you actually purchased the same content.

I'm well aware of the absurdity that is intellectual property theft. It's a form of thought crime. The last 5 things I downloaded were 4 games that I would never have bought and a copy of windows for which I already own a valid licence. So one I have already bought and 4 I had not intention of buying. If I had bought them I would have been very disappointed. Of course you and the money grabbing industry would be perfectly happy for me to spend money for utter crap but I'd rather not thanks.