Pirate Bay co-founders lost

The only thing that this is going to accomplish is to send people to sites like rapidshare and megaupload where you can still upload movies and music to share with others.

There are already heaps of alternatives to using torrents so it's a losing battle.

A realistic alternative in the digital age is to have copyright expire after 5 years instead of the current 50 years. Maximise profits during the first 5 and then it goes into public domain.

reply to post by ArMaP


ArMaP, you missed my point about the copyright issue. Which is, if a person buys your book, and shares it with a thousand people. Legal or not it's still no different than copying. Both ways, you are still being paid for one book.

IMO, this persuit of copyright infringment seems to be driven not by prohibiting sale of copied material, but of collecting profit from those who benifit from the material.

In other words, Take a song and send the entire file to someone else to listen to and delete it off your drive. then that person does the same thing until soon hundreds of people listened to the song , it would still be looked at as a form of copyright infringment or a variation that would ultimately lead to legal persuit.

You can chase tail on this all day long, but one day, digital commercial products will sooner or later dissapear; the internet is not made for it. Again, I would say that if you want to make money developing software and games, you better start using Hardware Locks.

Point Marek doesn't understand is, there are thousands of engineers, producers, singers, and actors, and writers, and programmers and so on out there who are creating content wether it be music, books, movies, games or whatever at absolutely zero charge to the consumer. If these products are good at all, consumers will tell their friends, the content will spread virally, advertisers will be attracted, the bigger fans of your work will support you with donations or some other form of compensation (merchandise). If you're good at sound engineering, there will always be a market for your services, everyone can't do their own engineering but yet may have a need or desire to create content and will hire you directly or share with you any income from the collaboration.

All music could be free and you would still have a job.

There will always be a need for musicians. Most of them are working everyday playing live. Because they don't have the benefit of royalties or support from companies, for various reasons including choice.

Maybe it's time for the Britney Spears of the world to come back to reality and work for a living like everyone else without the millions of dollars of compensation afforded them via special interest legislation.

I only use the music industry as an example, but this philosophy applies to most areas of commerce where legislation favors relatively few people.

Another positive outcome is that the mediocre sound engineers and singer etc... may in fact have to find an alternative way to make a living. This is good in that the world won't be flooded with garbage music and television, and the quality of the labor pool will grow. We need more doctors and teachers and scientists, not boy bands and lame sitcoms.

Copyright is a means to an end, and that end is GREED!

Originally posted by manbird12000
ArMaP, you missed my point about the copyright issue. Which is, if a person buys your book, and shares it with a thousand people. Legal or not it's still no different than copying. Both ways, you are still being paid for one book.

The difference is that when someone passes one original to another person there was no duplication of the book, one book was bought, one book exists, one book can be passed on to another person. That way the sharing is not considered copyright infringement because the book is still the one that was originally purchased.

If the person makes a copy of the book then that person has two books, and the copyright owner has no way of being paid by what can be sold as a new book.

Let me see if I can explain what I am thinking.

A writer writes a book; a company publishes the book and sells them for 5 Euros each, from which they give 3 Euros to the author.

Someone buys one book, reads it and passes it on to another person, that passes it on to a third. Three people read just one book, and that is legal because sharing the book is allowed.

Someone else buys a second book, makes a copy, sells that copy for 4 Euros and passes the original to another person.

At this time, 5 people read three books, but only two gave back money to the writer, and that is considered illegal, because the author lost "track" of the books sold.

The person that made the copy got 4 Euros back, so he/she is gaining something by selling the writer's work.

In other words, Take a song and send the entire file to someone else to listen to and delete it off your drive. then that person does the same thing until soon hundreds of people listened to the song , it would still be looked at as a form of copyright infringment or a variation that would ultimately lead to legal persuit.

If the song was originally bough legally, then there should be nothing forbidding you to transfer you license to ear it to someone else, and that is what you make by passing it on and deleting your copy, that is the right way because you are not gaining anything with your action, while the music can keep on being shared.

I know that is far from perfect, but it's the only way there is now to protect the artists.

My sister designed a label for a wine bottle some time ago, and th copyright agreement said specifically that the company selling the wine could not use that drawing for anything else, even in commercials the drawing could only appear on label because that was the original destination of the work. The same rules were applied, they could not make copies of my sister's work (the drawing) for anything else, but they could keep on printing labels for the wine. One work, one payment.

reply to post by ArMaP


I personally think books are a bad example. They are totally different to music CDs and movie DVDs which are nothing but DIGITAL FILES anyway.
A book isn't a file. It would take ages to scan pages and make a copy and wouldn't be worth the time.

Authors can protect their work by NOT GOING DIGITAL with Ebooks and keeping it in hard/softback form.

Same as artists and record companies, go back to VINYL and make it more difficult for people to make copies.

Same with movie companies, have your movies screened in CINEMAS only with no digital copies made.

They won't take this backward step of course because there is too much money to be made even WITH illegal downloading.

Originally posted by Power_Semi

Originally posted by skibtz
reply to post by Power_Semi

 

What books have you written? Unless your Stephen King or Dan Brown no one would give a toss about downloading your books me thinks

How does you writing a book over a matter of months (is that all? including research time?) compare to making a movie, writing a music album or programming the next big console title?

I am assuming that you are not a bestseller, now unless I am totally wrong, what makes you think that you can stand side by side with the big boys?

Trust me, the big boys don't care about you too much, if at all.

[edit on 17/4/2009 by skibtz]

I'm well aware of where I stand in the pecking order thank you very much, but over 3 years my books earned me around $250K and I was in the top 30 books on Amazon UK with one of the books I published in print.

The number of downloads show how many people wanted to download the books, and it equates to £10's of Thousands, so forgive me of not taking any of you scummy freeloaders seriously when you give your various idiotic explanation for why stealing is right.

Congratulations for writing such a good book. Seriously, you deserve credit for good work that attracted so much attention.

Is your book available to be checked out in a public library? How many libraries carry your book and lend it out for free? Does it make you angry?

reply to post by slimpickens93


I've been a recording engineer for 17 years so I'm well aware that there are many talented people working for free. But to these people it is a hobby not a job, fairly big difference I hope you'll agree.

There is plenty of great free music out there to download but it only takes a quick scan of TPB Top 100 Audio downloads to know what people want to listen to.

My whole point (as rambly and incoherent as it may be) is that by thinking music should be free you are dismissing "Artist/Content creator" as a legitimate career. You may think that's a good thing? I don't.

It's all very well to say "well, they can make money from touring and merchandise and give away their music" but in reality it doesn't work like that.
Until you get into the mega bands that can command several thousand £'s or $'s for a show the gigs will cost YOU money to play once you have hired vans and rehearsal spaces etc..

I have a friend who just writes music. That's his job. He's spent 15 odd years perfecting the art and is damn good at it. I'd wager at least 2 people on this thread have a song written by him on their Hard Drive.
He's not going on tour or selling T-Shirts. Although I'd pay to watch him do tricks in his wheelchair and sing in that awful falsetto of his it's unlikely he could make a career of it.

And this is just music. it's a whole other story when you get into software and films.

I do agree with allot that has been said on this thread. Downloaded music is too expensive. I'd really like to see tracks on iTunes/equivalent at 40p and all albums for £4.
The Youtube thing is just ridiculous, just let them have the music, who uses Youtube as a music player?
As an aside, the entire Rickrolling thing last year earned the songwriters £11 from 154million plays. I did get a chuckle from that.

Dunno man. It's obvious the internet distribution model for "content" needs some work but completely abolishing the idea of "intellectual property" can't possibly work until we all start working for free and paying nothing for anything.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Marek]

Originally posted by Marek
reply to post by slimpickens93

 

The Youtube thing is just ridiculous, just let them have the music, who uses Youtube as a music player?

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Marek]

I do actually, i search for songs on there, favorite them and then if i want to listen to them i go back to my userpage and can listen to which ever i want.

Sadly in the UK they are being removed and removed and removed because of all the crap going on between Youtube and the companys.

Originally posted by MarekThe Youtube thing is just ridiculous, just let them have the music, who uses Youtube as a music player?

I wasn't really referring to music on youtube so much as I was videos of various topics. These people are building fan bases some in the 10's of thousands. ...without traditional (paid) advertising. With this viewer base there is a ton of money to be made selling advertising. Youtube gets the bulk of that money now, but anyone can start their own website.

There are plenty of people who have done this already, in addition to selling subscriptions for extra content, and marketing other products (books or whatever).

The type and/or delivery of content is not so important as the information/entertainment value to the end user.

I don't know why I'm even explaing this it is pretty much common knowlege.

The point is that the copyright system is becoming obsolete and business models based on it are failing. Regardless of wether it's right or it's wrong, beneficiaries of that system will have to get with the times and change their business model, get into a different business, or suffer the consequences.

At this point you just cannot control the flow of information or anything that can be digitized or duplicated easily (t-shirts). Any attempts to do so are futile.

The only way to protect intellectual property is to never release it at all.

Give up the fight. There will never be enough jail cells to ever stop copyright infringement as we know it now.

hmm lets kill this debat:

www.thepirategoogle.com...

enjoy

Can't say that i'm surprised by the court's decision, but I don't believe they are guilty of anything. They didn't personally post any illegal links, the site is merely a way to find it easier. And if the court reasoned that the site was the cause of more illegal downloads, why can't gun manufactureres be prosecuted for murders with their guns. I know it's a bit more extreme, but it's the same concept...

Originally posted by Emile124
Can't say that i'm surprised by the court's decision

How can anyone be seeing as the judge is working with copyright issues in the same associations as the music/movie industry lawyers do?

Its been all over the news today.

[edit on 23-4-2009 by merka]