SABAM v. Netlog: ECJ confirms general filtering systems installed for the prevention of copyright in

Originally posted by MattNC
I'm curious: If you all made a living and supported your families by creating intellectual property and getting royalty payments from it, how would you feel if your hard work was being passed around for free?

Is it ok to do this because the perceived intellectual property owners are so "rich"? How low does income level of those you are stealing from have to go before it's no longer acceptable?

although your argument is logical and familiar (I make money from creating stuff and exploiting IP :-) ), in a way it is besides the point. What's going on is not about the principle, it's about the scale the practice took due to the internet. As soon as reproduction technologies became available, people used it to steal content.
As others mentioned already, the stealing went mainstream, due to intermediaries who made money (the money the artist, or better, the record company lost).
At the same time let's not be fooled by the propaganda. This is mentioned here by others as well: the effects of piracy are not what the industries would like us to believe and some studies even point at results they want to keep from us (one study claims that people who download illegal music at the same time buy more music)

Originally posted by MattNC

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by MattNC

 

Oh do tell me how is it stealing if noone loses money or suffers in any way financially? How is it stealing if the "thief" doesn't gain any monetary value? Explain that.

Easy concept: If I profit $100 per software license sold, and sharing/piracy results in me losing 1000 "legit" unit sales, I've had $100,000 stolen from me.

Incorrect.

1 pirated license does not equate to 1 loss in sales.

If you make a painting and put it up for sale for 20.000 dollars and someone likes it so much and prints out a high res. photo of it on canvas and hangs it on the wall because they simply do not have the 20K you asked for it. Did you then lose a sale?

The answer is no.

The studies mentioned are true as well. Ever since the internet music and video sales have risen by large margins and they know it. But it does not limit itself to just that, There are companies in the music and graphics production industry that offer very expensive programs that simply never would have attached so many businesses to them without piracy.

Take autodesks 3dstudio for instance. They offer 'cheaper' and stripped student licenses. Most of these students work freelance right after school or at some point after but do not have accses to the newest cheaper but limited student versions but they need the full fledged version to compete in the market. They are starting out but have no investment capital to speak off so $1000 and more for a piece of software is out of the question. They pirate the fully fledged 3dstudio instead of buying a cheap 3d program from a another vendor. They make money and after a while make enough profits enabling them to switch to legally obtained software:

Which company is going to get their money ?
Answer = The company they have been pirating since they have been working with their software for so long and have become used to since switching to another takes a lot of time and effort and time = money.



The same story applies to audio production software and i have seen that many times first hand. I have friends that started out in attic or a basement and systems loaded with expensive pirated audio production software who now run their own pro studios with legit copies on every system they use of those same vendors they at first pirated simply because that is what they know.

The industry knows this full well and that is why (on a side note) laws like SOPA only steal our privacy but do not in anyway stop piracy.


The system helps itself
IP protection is adequate
There is no need for privacy invading laws for this reason
One can never expect to prevent anything for a 100% ,deal with it.



That is how the cookie crumbles,
stop wasting tears over the crumbs.

Originally posted by MattNC
reply to post by 1littlewolf

 

Your poster has entertainment value but that's the only value.

If stealing as you propose is ok... and it is stealing and does not fit the concept of public domain... what's the motivation for somone to create a new program or product? For the greater good alone? The greater good doesn't put immediate food on the table.

Sharing is not the same as stealing. In many countries such as Canada it is legal to download copyrighted material as long as it is not for commercial use.

The motivation is still there to create – for if people want to sell your product or profit from it in any way they still have to pay you the royalties. So you’ll still get your food on the table.

Originally posted by MattNC
Easy concept: If I profit $100 per software license sold, and sharing/piracy results in me losing 1000 "legit" unit sales, I've had $100,000 stolen from me.

It's like you going on vacation and not paying for the hotel room you rented. You didn't profit, but you didn't pay the hotel what you should have.

You assume that people who download stuff would actually still do it if they had to pay for it, and in most cases they wouldn’t. Everyone I know has thousands of pictures, movies and songs on their hard drives which are only there because they were able to obtain them without a fee.

And once again you are trying to blur the line between material goods and ideas in order to prove your point. If you stayed in a hotel for free then you’d be violating trespass and break and enter laws.

------------------------------------------------

I think it’s time you actually started responding to my questions instead of throwing out one weak scenario after another in order to try and prove your point. Here’s some I’ve cut and pasted from my prior posts and then added to.

***If you have an idea and tell someone else, and then they tell someone else is that really different from you recording that idea and it being shared, or painting that idea and then someone downloading it and using it as their avatar? Once your idea is out in the public domain its fair game. If you design a house, and someone copies the style then is that stealing?

***In my opinion the only right you have is the rights associated with being the originator. If people are merely sharing your idea and there's no profit involved then so be it. It’s gonna happen and that's simply human nature. I mean next you could suggest that only the person who buys a CD has the right to listen to it.

***How on Earth are you going to recall it once hundreds or thousands of people have downloaded it? And why should those people who are sharing it around because they enjoy it suffer because you were lax on security. Every kid who has a Tumblr blog, or everyone who’s sent an image via facebook which they themselves are by your definition stealing. Should all these people go to jail? If I look at a picture and then show someone that picture, how is that different from me sending it via email or that person downloading it from my hard drive? Or indeed downloading it from a file sharing site.

------------------------------------------------

The world is a rapidly changing place, and your thought processes stem from a place where you still think plagiarism or counterfeiting is analogous to file sharing. It isn’t. You can’t possibly put everyone one in jail who has ever downloaded a song without paying or gotten a movie off a friend’s hard drive. And the fact is this will never stop. In order for it to stop the amount of rights and freedoms which would have to be violated are astronomical and neither you or I would want to live in a world like that.

So what can you do..............? Nothing. You just have to adapt, accept the world is a very different place these days, accept that you cannot stop the spread of ideas once they’ve been released to the general public, and just accept it and try and make the best of it. Free music for you, free publicity for the artist, free exposure of your art, free free free.

To me (once everyone gets their head around the idea that you cannot stop it) this sounds quite close to a perfect world. Now we just need to take care of war and pollution…...

reply to post by MattNC


Thanks for your opinion and support of us owners. Just butting in here. I own over 300 copyrights and 2 trademarks. Ive asked and asked and asked here for a show of hands of how many of these posters HAVE copyrights?

I didnt get even ONE affirmative.

Its all you here speaking about what you have no clue of...because its not your product...you dont need the money from them for food and bills....and it is why musicial groups try for a record deal: to get rich and famous.

Not anymore. Put something out? It gets shared, shopped. hacked and passed around as a "sample". Thievery at its best.

Still...Im for sharing with some restrictions...whatever the world decides...Im fine with.

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
reply to post by MattNC

 

Thanks for your opinion and support of us owners. Just butting in here. I own over 300 copyrights and 2 trademarks. Ive asked and asked and asked here for a show of hands of how many of these posters HAVE copyrights?

I didnt get even ONE affirmative.

Its all you here speaking about what you have no clue of...because its not your product...you dont need the money from them for food and bills....and it is why musicial groups try for a record deal: to get rich and famous.

Not anymore. Put something out? It gets shared, shopped. hacked and passed around as a "sample". Thievery at its best.

Still...Im for sharing with some restrictions...whatever the world decides...Im fine with.

edit on 06-10-2010 by mysterioustranger because: (no reason given)

Copyrights in what kind of product?

It's all very well to come out with some vague statements about putting 'food on the table', and owning 300 copyrights and 2 trademarks, and then leave it at that. You want to be anything more than argumentative for the sake of it then give us some specifics.

I am a photographer in my spare time and the only pictures I put out which I don't intend to sell are very low resolution ones. They can go around the world a million times and I'll be happy. But if someone wants to create anything bigger than a postcard they have to come to me. We've also already had a musician post that he couldn't be happy about file sharing as it got his music out there and noticed.

And finally I'll pose the same quetion I asked MattNC

The world is a rapidly changing place, and your thought processes stem from a place where you still think plagiarism or counterfeiting is analogous to file sharing. It isn’t. You can’t possibly put everyone one in jail who has ever downloaded a song without paying or gotten a movie off a friend’s hard drive. And the fact is this will never stop. In order for it to stop the amount of rights and freedoms which would have to be violated are astronomical and neither you or I would want to live in a world like that.

So what can you do..............? Nothing. You just have to adapt, accept the world is a very different place these days, accept that you cannot stop the spread of ideas once they’ve been released to the general public, and just accept it and try and make the best of it. Free music for you, free publicity for the artist, free exposure of your art.
People are only sharing your idea cos they like it. And you want to punish them!?!?!?

To me (once everyone gets their head around the idea that you cannot stop it) this sounds quite close to a perfect world.

reply to post by mysterioustranger


Photographer here, I gots #tons of (c) So yeah there's that. And I dont mind if anyone uses my stuff if they use it for non-commercial / personal stuff. If they try to sell it or claim it as their own work then I have a problem. That's the very reason (c) excists. Not to play copyright facist with swat teams.

reply to post by 1littlewolf


-Music is in the movies "Trains, Planes and Automobiles" with Steve Martin and "Tommy Boy" with David Spade.
-Music (1 song w/ 5 digit royalty check...a big one) in "The Sopranos".

-Member of Billboard Magazines Top 100 Rock nand Roll Groups of All time.

-Author of 3 non-fictional novels, and 1 fictional.

-Solo entertainer songwriter before 1980 with at that time nearly 100 musical copyright. Some as composer, some as arranger, some as co-composer...all with different % of royalties.

Aside form all this...how much, who gets what and why, and how it differs in Europe and the rest of the world...well...there is just no time to explain it to those here with animosity toward me, originally produced and copyrighted music. It took me a lifetime.

In the end, Ill say this. We never thought there'd come a day when getting a "record deal" and becoming "rich" would be a thing of the past...computer and sharing and the like. Sampling too... is a big violation of original intent.

In closing...Im ready to accept a change in the world. You write something now a days...put it out there...someone or someones come along sample it, shop it, cut it up and change it and call it "theirs' and "new" and they created that. Maybe the copyrighter didnt want that? Maybe they wanted to at least be ASKED 1st. Maybe they didnt like it at all. Thats why some thing dont appear in commercials; because the owners dont approve of the product, how its presented or how they are using the copyrighted material. Its their right after all.

How fair is that?

reply to post by PsykoOps


Do you use water-marks on your photos as the professionals do? My group does as well... as most famous photographers and companies that are professional due. And that you know is true if you in fact are in the business.

One last point, and then I will move on.

It is a changing world agreed? Things have to change. Also agreed? And copyright holders are ready. We just have to find a mutually satisfying way.

One last point Ill make.

Some ATS'r came on here asking us to listen to his son's new song and let him know what we think of it. His son was 15 yrs old I think. Dad was really proud of his son's song.

I said :"Thanks a lot! You just GAVE it away to the entire world. Now Im gonna take it home, change the words, and some cool stuff to it, change the name to something else and then Im gonna put that out on the internet as MY new song! Thanks. Tell your son my band says....C'ya!"

There-in is my point. Entirely.

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
reply to post by 1littlewolf

 

-Music is in the movies "Trains, Planes and Automobiles" with Steve Martin and "Tommy Boy" with David Spade.
-Music (1 song w/ 5 digit royalty check...a big one) in "The Sopranos".

-Member of Billboard Magazines Top 100 Rock nand Roll Groups of All time.

-Author of 3 non-fictional novels, and 1 fictional.

-Solo entertainer songwriter before 1980 with at that time nearly 100 musical copyright. Some as composer, some as arranger, some as co-composer...all with different % of royalties.

Aside form all this...how much, who gets what and why, and how it differs in Europe and the rest of the world...well...there is just no time to explain it to those here with animosity toward me, originally produced and copyrighted music. It took me a lifetime.

In the end, Ill say this. We never thought there'd come a day when getting a "record deal" and becoming "rich" would be a thing of the past...computer and sharing and the like. Sampling too... is a big violation of original intent.

In closing...Im ready to accept a change in the world. You write something now a days...put it out there...someone or someones come along sample it, shop it, cut it up and change it and call it "theirs' and "new" and they created that. Maybe the copyrighter didnt want that? Maybe they wanted to at least be ASKED 1st. Maybe they didnt like it at all. Thats why some thing dont appear in commercials; because the owners dont approve of the product, how its presented or how they are using the copyrighted material. Its their right after all.

How fair is that?

You sound quite talented and I hold no animosity toward you. The original spin on this thread was more directed towards people who are merely file sharing and I have said throughout that if someone is gonna start profiting from your work then that's a completely different story. But 'file sharing' behaviour has always existed to some degree - I used to tape songs off the radio when I was a kid, or you could burn CDs. Of the 5 things you've mentioned above, only the fifth is something that I could see file sharing potentially harming. but then at the same time it may even open your work up to a whole new audience and maybe even increase the royalties you are getting.

File sharing is in fact helping many bands who would otherwise never get noticed get out there and is landing them record deals. There are plenty of people in world today who are still getting record deals and still becoming mega-rich, and I can't see those days ever finishing. It's just there won't be as much money from record sales that's all.

You speak of sampling. Chopping and changing ideas against the will of the originator has also always existed. But technology simply makes it much easier to do and therfore it is being done more. But if someone samples your song and trys to make a profit from it then there are still and I'm sure there will always be legal avenues to get what you are due.

But times have changed with the advent of technology, and like it or not it is here to stay. You cannot police every kid's laptop. Indeed the type of society that would allow that would impinge on so many personal liberties we would pretty much have to be living in soma complete totalitarian dictatorship.

To be honest with you unless you provide some examples of how file sharing has eaten into some of your royalty profits I still can't see why you have a problem.

Some ATS'r came on here asking us to listen to his son's new song and let him know what we think of it. His son was 15 yrs old I think. Dad was really proud of his son's song.

I said :"Thanks a lot! You just GAVE it away to the entire world. Now Im gonna take it home, change the words, and some cool stuff to it, change the name to something else and then Im gonna put that out on the internet as MY new song! Thanks. Tell your son my band says....C'ya!"

There-in is my point. Entirely.

Life is full of examples of people taking mediocre ideas and making them better. If the new song was enough like the original then the 15 year old kid would be entitled to some royalties as a co-writer, and his work would have probably be spread out to a much wider audience than what it may ever have been. This may even be his big break.

This example has nothing to do with file sharing as stuff like this has and will always happen.

reply to post by 1littlewolf

You dont seriously think they will seek him out and say "Heres some money for you for writing that song" do you? Seriously? Thats what this is all about.

They would never find him, pay him, and make him famous...it happens everyday. Its shared, changed, edited and used...for free. Thats the prevailing attitude here.

Ill get it from a friend we'll copy it, pass it around, and keep doing it. Sales are lost each and every time...and to a degree...I AGREE...n that can be fine .

See, I didnt say I dont agree with file sharing...I actually do to a greater than usual extent. Its just as the world changes..so will originators rights of publicly presented original compositions. Thats all.

It would be nice here too if the people addressing this issue...werent the ones "free-sharing" the material with little or no idea how any of this works.

Originally posted by MattNC

Originally posted by 1littlewolf

I see your point man, but there's something else you're missing. For the 'little guys' file sharing is a boon as it increases market exposure and helps put your work out into the public eye in a way which would not be possible unless you were affiliated with some large corporation. The net result (assuming you're any good and it has to be assumed that your work would only be widely shared if it were any good) is increased exposure and increased demand for your product.

Regardless of business strategy, if I don't want my stuff shared for free, what gives someone the right to offer it for free?

Your argument is that roads are bad because criminals drive on them to their crimes.
File sharing does not equal stealing. People who steal and put it out there are still bad and doing bad things. Fortunately there is a great deal more being shared than stolen private property.

I actually think we agree more than you suspect. My main beef is large against those who seek to halt the free spread of ideas across the internet, those who would impinge upon our rights in order to try and uphold laws which are almost impossible to enforce and no longer relevant, and those who seek to hold the people who run file sharing business responsible and therefore shut them down because of the actions of its users.

But you gotta look at the big picture. Like you admit the world is changing. Some will get hurt, others will benefit. That's just the way it works. Change is inevitable.

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
reply to post by 1littlewolf

 

You dont seriously think they will seek him out and say "Heres some money for you for writing that song" do you? Seriously? Thats what this is all about.

They would never find him, pay him, and make him famous...it happens everyday. Its shared, changed, edited and used...for free. Thats the prevailing attitude here.

Well it's not my attitude. I would feel sorry for the kid, but like I said ideas have been stolen for as long as people have had them. If the kid and his dad realized what had happened then they would have a course to take action. Obviously I realize that with today’s technology ideas can spread further and faster and it can be much harder to prove originaity in court. But these are the time we live in.

Any time you share an idea you risk it being stolen and modified. But this has always been the case for there have always be unscrupulous people out there willing to take advantage of others with talent. At least with the internet there is almost always a trace one could possibly back track to the point at least prior to the song or idea being modified.

And like I have also insinuated, for every guy that gets ripped off there's a bunch who are making a name for themselves with minimal cost.

Besides, you also have to consider that even though this kid may be losing out on profits through the modified version of his song, who's to say the original would have ever made it in the first place. Essentially he is not losing out as he never had and quite possibly never would have made any money from it anyway. And if his original does make it big then he would be in a much more able position to recoup the royalties owed from those who ripped him off.

Ill get it from a friend we'll copy it, pass it around, and keep doing it. Sales are lost each and every time...and to a degree...I AGREE...n that can be fine.

Here you assume he would ever have made any money in the first place, or at the very least that the profits that the guys who ripped him off are making are profits that he would have ever seen. And if it ends up he does from the original and can prove when he made it (which would be easy) then he has suffered no net loss and as stated above he will be in a position to recoup royalties owed on the modified version

See, I didnt say I dont agree with file sharing...I actually do to a greater than usual extent. Its just as the world changes..so will originators rights of publicly presented original compositions. Thats all.

I agree. And for better or worse there's not much anyone can do about it.

What you must consider is few people know where the files they are sharing originally came from. Whether it was ripped off or freely put up by the artist, nor do they know if someone a few more shares down the line is gonna decide to try and profit from it. I do not think these people should have there right to file share impinged upon or be punished just because there are unscrupulous people out there.

It would be nice here too if the people addressing this issue...werent the ones "free-sharing" the material with little or no idea how any of this works.

I don't see how this is relevant. There is almost no one who is even semi-internet savvy these days who has not downloaded a few songs from the mates, or right clicked on an image they like and 'Saved Picture As'.