Internet Piracy!

[the_JinX]

Originally posted here by rcgreen
Funny how it's only the entertainment biz that calls it piracy. Normal people
call it "copyright infringment", but that doesn't sound bloodthirsty enough.
Not exactly in the class of rape robbery and murder.

While the punishment for such infringments seems to be a lot worse then for either robbery, rape or murder..

[nihil]

Hmmm,

Funny how it's only the entertainment biz that calls it piracy

Actually it isn't over here; the term is used for other products as well. Strictly speaking I would suggest that "counterfeiting" is a better term, but this is almost exclusively used to refer to currency these days.

"Piracy" is the making and distribution of fake products.............that is, selling them. Over here it is a criminal offence. Copyright infringements are basically civil cases as is violation of the EULA (that is breach of contract).

Obviously the rules vary widely from country to country.

I still maintain that the people who share files are not the heinous villains that they are portrayed to be, as I do not think that they would buy the products commercially as an alternative. Hey there is plenty of "pirated" media around, and they don't even go to the trouble of buying that?

As a rough indication, around here I would expect to get a CD or DVD for about one third of the RRP.

[SirDice]

The distribution allone is a criminal offence.. selling the fakes/copies is even worse.. indeed the law is different in detail from country to country.. but it is illegal in most (if not all) countries..

IIRC there was a recent study (unfortunately forgot where I read it) that showed that downloading a certain song actually INCREASED sales.. Not decrease as the RIAA (and others) wants everyone to believe..

Yes.. I do have certain standpoints regarding this subject..

I want the performers/creators to get paid in full.. They make the stuff and I want more.. If I don't use it, I don't buy it.. Recording/Software companies should get a decent normal share.. They distribute the stuff.. they invest in new talent (not all of them make it).. they make it happen..

But I also believe records/cds/software are over-priced when it hits the shops... So I can understand why people copy stuff.. Heck, I've done it myself.. So maybe we should change the law? Instead of breaking copyright infringement or EULAs all the time, we should allow unrestricted copying? What about the performers/creators if everybody can copy everything for free? Where's the money going to be made? As a performer/creator you'd still have to pay for your house, your food.. So, you get a "real" job.. One that pays money, you can pay the bills.. This means you can spend less time performing/creating.. etc.. etc.. In the end WE lose.. We don't get to enjoy listening to music.. or use good programs.. watch great movies.. sad but true..

Yes, I agree the law needs to be changed.. It needs to be updated to the 21st century.. That's for sure.. But mass copyright infringement/counterfeiting/piracy is still illegal.. Like I said.. It doesn't matter how many people do it..

[nihil]

Hmmm, India, Africa, Russia and China are countries where copyright is not respected or rigorously enforced. That is a pretty large market

Yes, I have seen reports that downloading might actually increase legitimate sales. There certainly seems to be a lot of hype and no hard evidence.

[dalek]

Originally posted here by nihil
Hmmm, India, Africa, Russia and China are countries where copyright is not respected or rigorously enforced. That is a pretty large market

Yes, I have seen reports that downloading might actually increase legitimate sales. There certainly seems to be a lot of hype and no hard evidence.

That is where I lose all sympathy, for the RIAA/MPAA, they will spend thousands to prosecute a child to make a point, yet the countries you listed nihil,..... aggressively blackmarket this stuff, it's huge dollars for these countries....we can't be that naive to think that those in Gov't in Russia don't turn a blind eye (when wallet gets filled), this country is responsible for most of the Spyware and Phishing sites that pollute the internet on a daily basis.

So when the RIAA/MPAA start making inroads into prosecuting the Chinese (not) Russian (not) Africans (not) and India (not), then I will support them 100%, until then it's only 75%...

It's one thing to insist only we must adhere to their rules, and yet other's don't without some sort of backlash, and that's why cycnism runs rampant when people download, it's like thumbing their noses.

Reminds me of the day's when the cops would go all crazy to bust a person for a couple of joints and the pusher/dealer walked, if you want the users to stop then cut off the supply, cause as long as there is a demand there will always be someone willing to supply....

[SirDice]

Originally posted here by dalek
Reminds me of the day's when the cops would go all crazy to bust a person for a couple of joints and the pusher/dealer walked, if you want the users to stop then cut off the supply, cause as long as there is a demand there will always be someone willing to supply....

Cutting the supply doesn't work.. You said it yourself: "as long as there is a demand there will always be someone willing to supply".. You need to cut the demand to make it last..

[brokencrow]

It's a new paradigm. Downloading is here to stay.

I like the idea the French have to charge downloaders a monthly fee, royalties actually, to do any downloading. Think they're spot on with the lawsuit against Apple for their ipod only policy, too.

[dalek]

Cutting the supply doesn't work.. You said it yourself: "as long as there is a demand there will always be someone willing to supply".. You need to cut the demand to make it last..

Agreed, but it is easier said then done...hence the word "Addiction", granted I can't see people being addicted to their P2P, or can they?, regardless, weening people off in order to stem the supply because of a lack of demand will never happen, poeple are by and large "fallible".....and so on it goes......

[nihil]

What about the performers/creators if everybody can copy everything for free? Where's the money going to be made?

Well the performers/creators are contracted to recording companies or sell their creations. They are actually not losing out that much IMO. A lot of their income is from live performances and TV, so many of them are not too bothered about file sharing as it is publicity for them. The real losers have to be the recording companies and the retail side of the industry.

One salient feature of copyright protection over here is that the Industry has not been particularly active in pursuing downloaders. This is because it is counterfeit products that are the real problem and that is a criminal offence so they don't have to finance its prosecution, the state does that for them.

They have gone after a few major uploaders, but I doubt if there have been more than around 100 such cases so far.

They know that there is nothing much that they can do about the "sneakernet" and individuals swapping files with friends. In reality it would not be cost effective to even try.

What does surprise me is that they have not paid any attention to "newsgroups" where a lot of uploading is rife. No doubt they will catch on sooner or later.

Nothing much seems to have happened in the area of schools and universities either. Sure they would check that their servers are not being used to store illegal material, but whether their network is being used for the transmission of it is a different issue. It would be a bit like telling a phone company that it should prevent its services being used for organised crime?

[Lv4]

Originally posted here by rcgreen
First of all, it isn't piracy.

Piracy is stopping a ship on the high seas and robbing people by putting
their lives in danger. Lots of that going on here eh?

third definition from Merriam Webster dictionary -

the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright.

So your first "argument" is spurious at best.

Secondly, since when do the jugglers and clowns deserve to live like royalty?

It's high time that entertainers remember history. The king sat on his throne
and called for a jester to tell some jokes and cheer him up. If the king
wasn't amused, he had the jester beheaded. In a democratic country, the
voters are the royalty. Maybe we could start by beheading Oprah.

They "deserve" to as long as the public supports it. It is the law of supply/demand. They have the supply, we as the public have the demand. As long as we keep paying outrageous prices for entertainment then that is how long they deserve to be paid exorbitant amounts.


I will agree, with reservation, with your final comment. The reservation is because this is about legality, not morality although there certainly is a lot of political fall out from it.