Canada To Introduce Copyright Law Next Week

[Tgace]

Hmmm...busniess idea. I start-up a chain of "jukebox" set-ups. You feed in your money, select a playlist of various songs and out pops a CD with graphics and everything. No sitting at home DL, burning, waiting for the RIAA to kick in your door...music industry gets uts cut.

 

[Andrew Green]

Put out stuff we want to buy. Not the crap they have been. I don't need another "boy-band-of-the-day" cd. I want a new -must-have- cd from a giant.

At a fair price without all the stupid restrictions that get in our way in doing legal things with it...

The first time I have to enter a cd-key and then do a online activation just to be able to use a audio cd will be the last time I buy a audio cd...

Making a product less accessible is not the way to get people to buy it.

 

[arnisador]

Once again, people are arguing that the record companies are forcing them to steal. I think that's absolutely ridiculous.

If it was food we were talking about, I might buy the "I'm forced to steal" argument. But, we're just talking about taking stuff that isn't essential because people can't stop you from doing so. I'm not holier-than-thou here, and I'm not even saying you shouldn't be doing it, or even that I never have, but let's be honest about it. It's stealing, Jean Valjean.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

No, my point is, if they put out a decent product at a decent price, and were flexible in how they did it, especially based on current technology, they could make money, and not be so hated.

Why should I have to pay Van Halen for my data disks?
Why shouldn't I be able to make the archival copy I am allowed to by law?
Why should I be considered a criminal, or a terrorist if I do so?

 

[Andrew Green]

but let's be honest about it. It's stealing, Jean Valjean.

Actually a lot of the complaints about this technology and the new laws that back it are that it takes away legal rights, not illegal ones.

But on the piracy:

I really don't get it... they have a new, cheaper, more effiecient means of distributing media. They just do it over the net, no need for pressing cd's, distributing them, dealing with unsold inventory, etc. Yet they are fighting against it, rather then taking advantage of it and trying to use it to make money...

The last Star Wars movie hit the net within hours, there was a big fuss over how this was destroying the industry and costing millions. It broke several box office records.

Some shows have gained a following on the interent, which helped drive them into the mainstream and make them tons of money. Battlestar Galactica and a bunch of Anime shows being a few examples.

Electroic files are easy and convienient. They don't even have to get you to leave your house to get them. That is why piracy has become so huge. Because it is easy and convienient. And simple economics will tell you that people prefer the easy and convienient. Now the industry is getting involved in online music sales, but at the same time are crippling it. This hurts only the people that are paying, and probably prevents a few that might have paid from doing so. Why pay for a crippled version when you can get it for uncrippled for free?

The illegal methods are always going to be there, its just a matter of too what extent. I think that most people that can pay, will pay. But not if paying means it is less convienient and places restrictions on there legal use...

Cause if you are going to have to break the law just to use your purchase anyways, what exactly is the benefit of paying for it?

And if iTunes can take 80% of the market, and roll in some rather large numbers off of selling a crippled product, I can't help but think that even more could be made with a non-crippled product.

 

[Cryozombie]

Once again, people are arguing that the record companies are forcing them to steal. I think that's absolutely ridiculous...

Not my argument at all... but I refuse to see downloading a song as theft when recording it on my own for free is not... simply because one method is more convienient. If thats the case, guys who do construction who dont use hand tools should all be guilty of a crime too... since the only difference between digging with a shovel and digging with a bulldozer is convienience...

As far as my comment about People "stealing" from the Riaa and MPAA in general... I'm suggesting the problem wouldnt be as rampant if the product were more affordable and readily availible... Lets face it, if you could "get away" with stealing a car, are you gonna take a 6k hyundai, or a 100k Ferrari?

Uh huh.

 

[arnisador]

but I refuse to see downloading a song as theft when recording it on my own for free is not...

I think 'refuse' is the operative word here. If I go into a bookstore and scan a magazine in with a hand scanner, is that the same as if I tuck the magazine under my jacket and walk out with it? Neither is right, but there's still a difference.

Recording a song on your own takes some time and effort, and so is self-limiting. Downloads can be automated and in fact often are.

I agree that the record companies aren't handling this smartly and should change their business model. Book publishers have similar problems--less from scanned versions than from chep overseas versions being sold via Amazon and such. The Internet makes this possible.

But, the fact that the record companies are not doing things in a smart way doesn't change the fact that it's stealing. They're being forced to change by technology and more to the point by peopleusing it to steal their product.

There's a lack of respect in many quarters for intellectual property. People who wouldn't steal a CD from a store will steal its content from a server.

 

[Cryozombie]

I think 'refuse' is the operative word here. If I go into a bookstore and scan a magazine in with a hand scanner, is that the same as if I tuck the magazine under my jacket and walk out with it? Neither is right, but there's still a difference.

Actually, a resonable comparison, would be say... Its legal to sit in Borders and read the magazine, without buying it, but not legal at home, downlaoding a PDF online from someone who posted the magazine you want to read from the net.

Either way, the publisher does not make a penny off of you... they are just penalizing convienience.

Recording a song on your own takes some time and effort, and so is self-limiting. Downloads can be automated and in fact often are.

Again, penalizing convienience. By your very argument, Taking a Camera to the theater and recording a movie should be legal... as it takes some time and effort, and so is self-limiting, while recording the same movie off HBO should not be, as the process can be automated and in fact often is. However, the law is exactly the opposite, so I think your point is probably not the real reason it stands that way.

Again... if we want to call somthing "Theft" if its convienent, but not theft if its difficult, then corporate exec's that make a ton of money on the backs of their employees shpuld be jailed, while I should be allowed to rob a bank to make mine, since it is, by your definition, somthing that takes some time and effort, and so is self-limiting...

Lets face it, no matter HOW you spin it... the laws are inconsistant and don't resonably make sense... I wonder in a full blown court case on a level playing feild (not a multi-billion dollar corporation vs an 11 year old girl) how those laws would stack up?

 

[Cryozombie]

Oh, and Arni, Im not a Thief, Im a pirate.

:ultracool

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I wrote the piece below 10 years ago. I think much of it fits this discussion.

I own several hundred albums on vinyl. I no longer own a functional record player. So, I downloaded some of them off the internet in MP3 format, and burnt them to CD. According to the RIAA, thats illegal. BUT! If I had hooked a record player up to my PC, and burnt them myself, thats ok. I'm a little fuzzy on if I had taken them somewhere else and had someone else do it for me.

Ironically enough, despite owning the non-usable vinyl, and the "bootlegs" (usually kept in mp3 format as it stored better, and my PC has better sound than my stereo), I've also picked up the "original" CD versions when I found them on sale, or at the used CD shops. Hey, I'll pay $5-9 for a CD copy of a record I already own.

(From http://rustaz.com/writings/nonfiction/index.htm#pc)
From: Bob Hubbard
Subject: More comments on the piracy topic
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic
Date: 1995-03-26 01:27:29 PST

Ok, this thing is getting pretty rediculus (like my spelling )

Some definitions :

Pirate - one who DISTRIBUTES illegal copies

illegal - not from an authorized source

Cracker - one who cracks/breaks/removes copy protection

copy protection - code inside of a program meant to prevent the illegal
copying and distribution of software. Forms include:
Key disk - requires ORIGINAL disk to run software
dongle - requires a piece of hardware to run program
doc look up - find word X in docs
custom op sys - see Key disk
etc.etc

licencing agreement - legally non-binding form design to protect a
companies butt incase someone modifies a program & fries their hard drive


IMHO, as both a developer and publisher,

if you CRACK a protection scheme FOR YOUR OWN USE (ie to make a back up,
ease game play) you are ok.

IF you CRACK a protect scheme TO DISTRIBUTE (trade/sell/upload) YOU ARE A
PIRATE.

IF you distribute software that you DO NOT OWN THE RIGHTS TO (ie: you
have a writen, binding contract with the owner/are the owner) YOU ARE A
PIRATE (This does not apply if you are selling authorized copies)

IF you are a PIRATE, you are a CROOK/THIEF/CRIMINAL.

IF you PIRATE, you are breaking the law.


As has been stated, the "licencing agreement" states something like "this
program is owned by company X". This means that is "Company X" sends a
guy to your door and demands "program Y" now, you HAVE to give it to him
because EVEN though you spent $70+ on the game YOU DO NOT OWN IT! This
is BS. It is not legal unless you signed it. Look at Non-Disclosure
Agreements. I have been informed that unless BOTH parties sign it, it
doesnt count. this seems to be the common legal opinion.

As a programmer, I ask, if you have a copy of my software that you did
not obtain legally, please either delete it or pay for it. I don't make
that much from my royalties, and every penny counts. You know how tight
your cash flow is. Mine is just as bad. I do not drive a JAG, live in a
20,000 sqr.ft mansion and have 3 georgeous babes waiting on me hand and
foot. I drive a Mercury Topaz with over 100k miles on it, and am
splitting an appartment with one of my business partners. (ie: I aint rich)

As a distributor I ask, most of our programming teams are in similar
situations. We pay out 90% of what we take in to our programmers (as we
have a different company handeling
advertizing/publishing/shipping/duplication/etc we're able to do this).
(when we start handeling this section ourselves, this may change, but
because of details too complex to note, even though the % will be less,
everyone will make more.)


You the game playing public DEMAND high quality games. This means
good-great grafix, hours of game play, and preferable bug free. This
requires money. I can not make the addons/sequels/new games if my old
ones do not sell. Each pirated copy is income that I could have used to
invest in better tools/information to provide you with better games. You
are stealing (when you pirate) my money and intelectual property, but
even worse, you are stealing the games you may enjoy in the future. I
spend 80+ hours a week in front of this pc
programming/researching/debugging in addition to holding a (poor paying)
job. I do not care if I make 100k/year at this. 20k would be nice. I do
this because I enjoy it. When I find bootlegs of my work it hurts.
It says "your work isn't worth a dime". Why should I put myself thru
hell to create a work of love to distribute to those who asked for it, if
the majority are not going to reimberse me to show me it was worth it?
If you think working without reimbursement is ok, I would like you to
come work for me. The work week is 80 hours, and the pay rate is 0. I
don't see any takers. Please, remember what it takes to write that
program, and who you are hurting. Piracy hurt EVERYONE.

Just my opinion.

(For those who may ask, we do not currently have anything available. We
do have several projects in the works, and have desided to seek outside
submisions. E-mail for details please)

Thank you.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

1 other point. I do this for my own use, I don't setup huge MP3 sites, P2P dumps, etc.

I'd love to see a "So, you have an obsolete version and want to upgrade?" feature. Bring your old tape/cd/record to a kiosk, trade it in and for $5-6 you get a burned on the spot, legal CD. Cost of a blank being under 50 cents.....packaging (printed on site) is another 50 cents, and the whole system is automated.

 

[arnisador]

Either way, the publisher does not make a penny off of you... they are just penalizing convienience.

The publisher wants to make money by selling something so that the publisher can pay for its costs.

Again, penalizing convienience. By your very argument, Taking a Camera to the theater and recording a movie should be legal... as it takes some time and effort, and so is self-limiting, while recording the same movie off HBO should not be, as the process can be automated and in fact often is. However, the law is exactly the opposite, so I think your point is probably not the real reason it stands that way.

It's not the entire reason the law is as it is. But the fact that something is self-limiting is one reason why people don't bother to legislate against it or at least to prosecute it. People have had videcameras for a long time now, but only got concerned about taping movies in theatres when the Internet changed the scale.

Lots of these things are in principle wrong and many of them are also illegal, but the Internet's scale is what makes it a hot-button issue.

Again... if we want to call somthing "Theft" if its convienent, but not theft if its difficult, then corporate exec's that make a ton of money on the backs of their employees shpuld be jailed, while I should be allowed to rob a bank to make mine, since it is, by your definition, somthing that takes some time and effort, and so is self-limiting...

I can't understand this. It's a confusing mish-mash of non sequiters and tangents, but it's predicated on a straw man argument (the claim that I said that easy things should be legal). Can you try again with fewer fallacies?

Lets face it, no matter HOW you spin it... the laws are inconsistant and don't resonably make sense...

Well, they don't lead to the conclusion that the recording industry exists to provide you with free music, if that's what you mean.

As to the piracy notion...I suspect that none of us have entirely clean hands here. There was a time when many people felt that it just wasn't possible to get work done within software EULA guidelines (the 80s). The temptation to just pluck something off the Net for convenience sake can be very hard to resist. The force of all this stealing will surely change several industries.

In the meantime, it's wrong. If we were talking about farmland or water or something, I might have sympathy. But people who stealingcopies of "American Idol"? No sympathy. Call it what it is. It's stealing, and will surely cut into their profits from DVD sales. Will it hurt a lot? I don't know. Is a little stealing OK?

 

[arnisador]

1 other point. I do this for my own use, I don't setup huge MP3 sites, P2P dumps, etc.

I doubt anyone cares much about this. Yes, it is seemingly contradictory that it matters how you got the copies--but, it's the classic issue of buying stolen merchandise. You've still paid good money for it, right?

People should have the right to control their creations. It'll never happen because of technology, but it's still a valid principle.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I don't buy bootlegs. I buy original studio copies.
I attend enough cons, that there is always someone selling grey and black market goods. I buy my videos and audios from reliable sources.

The majority of what I download is either currently owned by me, or is bought soon afterwards.

I've got no problem with the creator getting paid for their work. In fact, I wish I could send some of them cash direct, so they get it all, rather than the small % that trickles down from the record companies.

I don't see why the media companies get to have it both ways. I can't copy it, but they get a kickback from blank media sales as well.

 

[Cryozombie]

The publisher wants to make money by selling something so that the publisher can pay for its costs.?

Yet, in both my examples the publisher sold me nothing, so how did he make money to pay his costs? Answer, he didn't.

Lots of these things are in principle wrong and many of them are also illegal, but the Internet's scale is what makes it a hot-button issue.

This assumes that YOUR principles are the correct ones, however, and that therefore they are right, or more valid than mine. Obviously, Millions of people disagree, or it wouldnt be an issue... meh?

I can't understand this. It's a confusing mish-mash of non sequiters and tangents, but it's predicated on a straw man argument (the claim that I said that easy things should be legal). Can you try again with fewer fallacies?

Let me clarify for you: You said: "Recording a song on your own takes some time and effort, and so is self-limiting. Downloads can be automated and in fact often are."

This was your "Justification" to why its Legal to record it off the radio, but not simply download it. I took that argument to the next level... I'm sorry you couldn't follow the concept.

Well, they don't lead to the conclusion that the recording industry exists to provide you with free music, if that's what you mean.

Nope. They exist to line their own pockets with money. Its a great and noble capatilist ideal of them, and I don't neccessarily find fault in that.

In the meantime, it's wrong. If we were talking about farmland or water or something, I might have sympathy. But people who stealingcopies of "American Idol"? No sympathy. Call it what it is. It's stealing, and will surely cut into their profits from DVD sales. Will it hurt a lot? I don't know. Is a little stealing OK?

Here's where our principles differ, fundamentally. I wont condone theft of property. If I have a cow, and you take my cow, I no longer have a cow. Therefore you stole from me. The same goes for farmland, bread, a compact disk, or money...

But the way I see it is If I own the Mona Lisa, and you come take a picture of it hanging on my wall, blow it up and put it on your wall, and enjoy it, you have not stolen from me, because I still have the painting. I also believe You cannot "steal" what does not exist... code. Sound. Air. Its all the same, TO MY WAY OF THINKING. Thats my principle.

The same goes for music. If "Arnisador and the Martial Talks" put out a CD of music, And I love the song, "Modern Arnis for life" but I think the rest of the Album sucks, I will NEVER buy that album. (unless its maybe in a 99 cent bin someplace... One song is worth maybe 99cents) I MIGHT download "Modern Arnis for Life", however... but even if I didnt, you would never see a penny of my money. So what exactly have I stolen from you? As far as I see it, Nothing. And If I were a performer, aside from the shmucks at the record lable screaming and saying I cant do that... I would give EVERY song away for FREE, and make my millions off the live shows and licenced merchandise.

So, yeah. Here is my bottom line. In "principle", no, I am not doing anything wrong when I download a song. I'm using the convienience of the internet to get for free, somthing that I would otherwise get for free. Heaven forbid thats theft. I didnt know you could steal, what was freely being given.

 

[arnisador]

The majority of what I download is either currently owned by me, or is bought soon afterwards.

Have you ever paid for shareware, though--when it wasn't nagware? Most people don't, I suspect.

I don't see why the media companies get to have it both ways. I can't copy it, but they get a kickback from blank media sales as well.

Sure, but...it's their stuff. Shouldn't they be able to set the rules, however weird they are? Is not liking a rule like this, or not thinking it's logical, reason enough to invalidate it? They're the merchants. If you don't like their rules, boycott them!

Again, I'd wager that everyone crosses the line at some point...I'm just saying, let's be honest about it.

 

[arnisador]

This assumes that YOUR principles are the correct ones, however, and that therefore they are right, or more valid than mine.

Well, my principles in this case are U.S. law. Yours are piracy.

Obviously, Millions of people disagree, or it wouldnt be an issue... meh?

Yup. Millions of people have noticed that it's easy to steal without much fear of being caught, and they've done it.

But not all of them are trying to justify it the way you are.

We're talking past each other. You're saying "I can" and I'm saying "But that doesn't make it right" and that's all.

 

[Tgace]

The only point I agree with is the one about the industry forcing you to pay $15-20 for a CD when there is like 1 good song on it. Bring back the 45!!!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Have you ever paid for shareware, though--when it wasn't nagware?

Yes.
Gazillionaire, Castle of the Winds, Space Empires III, Absolute FTP (which I encourage all of my clients to use and register as well), FastStats, WinZip, WinRar, ZoneAlarm, BlackIce, Eudora and a dozen others are all shareware programs that I have paid for, even when in a few cases, there are 'free' versions available.

I also used to be a shareware vendor back in the 90's.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

As an aside,
"Money Good, Napster Bad!"
http://www.campchaos.com/show.php?iID=232
Warning, mature content.