Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Copyright Common Sense From Telecom Ericsson

Soulskill posted about 3 years ago | from the can't-we-all-just-get-along dept.

Piracy 183

An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from a story at Torrentfreak: "Entertainment industry lobby groups often describe file-sharers as thieves who refuse to pay for any type of digital content. But not everyone agrees with this view. Swedish telecom giant Ericsson sees copyright abuse as the underlying cause of the piracy problem. In a brilliant article, Rene Summer, Director of Government and Industry Relations at Ericsson, explains how copyright holders themselves actually breed pirates by clinging to outdated business methods. The most vocal rightsholder groups would ideally turn the Internet into a virtual police state, and at the other end of the spectrum there are groups that want to abolish copyright entirely.'"

cancel ×

183 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Uh oh. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36636492)

I just turded my pants.

Re:Uh oh. (-1, Troll)

imarsman (305818) | about 3 years ago | (#36636536)

Is that seriously the first post?

Re:Uh oh. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36636566)

Is that seriously the second post?

Re:Uh oh. (-1, Offtopic)

bugs2squash (1132591) | about 3 years ago | (#36636598)

is that seriously the turd post ?

easy to judge others (4, Interesting)

cheeks5965 (1682996) | about 3 years ago | (#36636544)

It seems that whenever someone has the solution for copyright problems, it always involves somebody else making sacrifices. no surprise, hmm?

Re:easy to judge others (2)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about 3 years ago | (#36636620)

One man's "solution" resulting in someone else's "sacrifice" is hardly unique to copyright problems.

Re:easy to judge others (2)

softWare3ngineer (2007302) | about 3 years ago | (#36636742)

its not even unique to 'solutions' in general.

Re:easy to judge others (1)

jhoegl (638955) | about 3 years ago | (#36636852)

Dont make me go upside your head!
See... the solution, to not make me go upside your head... involves no sacrifices.

Re:easy to judge others (3, Funny)

Grave (8234) | about 3 years ago | (#36636974)

Nonsense. You're sacrificing the pleasure that children would derive from you smacking him upside the head. Won't someone please think of the children?

Re:easy to judge others (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 3 years ago | (#36637290)

I have a solution.

And it doesn't involve any real sacrifice - just a willingness for Media companies to operate like other companies. "Satisfaction guaranteed or 100% money back." That way we consumers would not be stuck buying shit like Transformers 2 and no way to return it.

Until that happens, I'll just keep downloading the DVDs illegally and screening-out the shit. I am sick and tired of throwing away my money on inferior crap, and the media companies laughing all the way to the bank.

Re:easy to judge others (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 3 years ago | (#36636904)

A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied - Larry David speaking on Henry Clay

Re:easy to judge others (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | about 3 years ago | (#36636672)

It's called both parties meeting half-way, a common mediation tactic.

Re:easy to judge others (5, Insightful)

iksbob (947407) | about 3 years ago | (#36636798)

Which sound reasonable, but assumes that both parties' demands are equally extreme. If one party's demands embody a fair and ideal solution, while the other's are off-the-deep-end bat-shit-crazy, meeting mid-way is going to result in a less than ideal solution, skewed in favor of the extremist party. Simply meeting in the middle would result in an arms race of making the most absurd and extreme demands.

Re:easy to judge others (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36636898)

There's no absolute definition of fair.

Re:easy to judge others (4, Insightful)

molnarcs (675885) | about 3 years ago | (#36636786)

Sacrifices?

RIAA and friends are calling downloader thieves. I'm going to say something that might not be very popular with the holier-than-thou types: pirating music from labels are members of RIAA, MPAA and their equivalents is an ethical obligation. Here is why.

If I was born about 200 years ago, I could be reasonably certain that I could share art that I enjoyed as a teen with my own children, not to mention my grandchildren. My generation would have enjoyed this "privilege" as well. This has been stolen from us. They stole our public domain. Thanks to the lobbying of the movie and music industries and corrupt politicians, now we have a copyright extend beyond our own children's lifetime. Generations lost access to culture. And these people have the guts to call downloaders pirates?!

I want RIAA, MPAA and friends to die. As soon as possible. I'm refusing to buy any music or movies published under their label. I'm more than willing to pay for entertainment by the way. I will buy Mass Effect 3 as soon as it's out. I'd support musicians who are experimenting with self publishing or services like Jamendo. But I would never pay for music when I know that about 70% of my money goes to thieves. Thieves that did the public HUGE harm - depriving generations from access to culture, be it music, literature or whatever.

Re:easy to judge others (-1, Troll)

AmazingRuss (555076) | about 3 years ago | (#36636874)

I'd like to share your paycheck with my children and grandchildren. It's SO unfair that I cant!

Re:easy to judge others (2)

houghi (78078) | about 3 years ago | (#36636934)

The person who designed your car wants to know where the check for his kids is.

Re:easy to judge others (3, Insightful)

Ephemeriis (315124) | about 3 years ago | (#36636946)

I'd like to share your paycheck with my children and grandchildren. It's SO unfair that I cant!

So, you're against the RIAA and friends as well then? Because this is exactly what they want to do. Copyrights have been extended far beyond the lifetime of the original artist - so that the paycheck winds up being delivered to their children and grandchildren. Or, in more cases than not, the faceless corporation that owns the rights.

Re:easy to judge others (3, Interesting)

VAElynx (2001046) | about 3 years ago | (#36636960)

Really? I don't know about you, but when i do some work , i only get paid for it once, not for years to go.
Why should i support folk who are far more privileged than myself - they get paid for the same work for years!?
In other words, you can take all the paycheck i'll get in 20 years for work i do now - all of the zero bucks.

Re:easy to judge others (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36637066)

that's an interesting sentiment. I, too, am only paid once. So, you are saying that media such as books, movies, and music are worthless (due to the lack of scarcity of digital copies). However if nobody pays the folks who create this media, said media will either cease to exist or become much lower in quality. I'd much rather pay $10 to go see a movie than sit at home watching the blathering of idiots on YouTube. See the difference? Are there some mostly decent free projects? Sure, probably a couple. Can some music performers subsist on live music? Sure, some could. Would books still be written if there was no paycheck in it (or the only paycheck was for "hours worked" on a commission)? Sure - there would be books. I might even want to read a couple of them. Not many though. Honestly - just pay for what you consume. There is an asking price. If it is too high then it isn't worth it to you. Don't watch/read/listen then. Simple enough.

Re:easy to judge others (3, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | about 3 years ago | (#36637562)

Who's to say the quality would decrease? If anything, it might actually increase...
Quantity would certainly decrease, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
There is a lot of shovelware media out there, garbage movies, poor quality software, poor music etc mostly written by people with no real love for their work, just wanting to make a quick buck... If there were no bucks to be made, then the only people who would create media are those who enjoy doing so.

Re:easy to judge others (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36637076)

Congratulations, you just said you're willing to take a massive pay cut. You're willing to accept 1/1000 of your current paycheck! Assuming you're not a complete hypocrite, I assume I'll be receiving the rest of your paychecks. This is, after all, exactly what you're demanding of everyone else.

So which is it? Are you a person of principal or a lying, thieving, hypocrite like most pirates?

Really, senor Troll? (2)

VAElynx (2001046) | about 3 years ago | (#36637312)

I said you can have all the paychecks i'll get in 20 years for work i do now. Because that's just what these folk get - money for work done long in the past.

Re:easy to judge others (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36637054)

I'd like to share your paycheck with my children and grandchildren. It's SO unfair that I cant!

You fail to understand the original poster's intent (I think) to acknowledge that any society's culture cannot be purchased/co-opted wholesale by private enterprise or created as a solely monetized product. Making absurd overreaching claims serves no constructive purpose in the conversation.

Re:easy to judge others (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36636902)

Your post is wrong.

I'm going to say something that might not be very popular with the holier-than-thou types: pirating music from labels are members of RIAA, MPAA and their equivalents is an ethical obligation.

I'm a holier-than-thou type, and that sentence was very popular with me. See? Your post was wrong

Re:easy to judge others (2)

91degrees (207121) | about 3 years ago | (#36636910)

No! Don't buy, don't pirate!

If you download the media you're still endorsing the RIAA and MPAA. You're demonstrating that they're the ones creating the content that people want and you're still legitimising what they produce.

Re:easy to judge others (3, Insightful)

jnpcl (1929302) | about 3 years ago | (#36637040)

If you download the media you're still endorsing the RIAA and MPAA. You're demonstrating that they're the ones creating the content that people want and you're still legitimising what they produce.

False.

The MAFIAA are simply Promoters, Publicists, and Producers. They do not Create.

Re:easy to judge others (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 3 years ago | (#36637136)

Not necessarily. That would only happen if you tell others about it.

Re:easy to judge others (3, Interesting)

molnarcs (675885) | about 3 years ago | (#36637554)

No! Don't buy, don't pirate! If you download the media you're still endorsing the RIAA and MPAA. You're demonstrating that they're the ones creating the content that people want and you're still legitimising what they produce.

I see your point, but most of the music I listen to are indies. Lounge music, nu-jazz, jazz, etc. I pay for that stuff whenever I can. Occasionally, I stumble upon something that's actually good and I want, but comes from a RIAA label. Look, RIAA is a fishing company. For every good artist they find they create nine crap ones - assembly-line celebrities, basically. And when you pay for that one good artist you are also supporting nine crap ones. That's a rotten business model - and choosing to pirate is still the more ethical choice.

Re:easy to judge others (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36636928)

I presume, then, that your act of civil disobedience occurs after the original copyright period? E.g., if you pirate music or movies from RIAA or the MPAA, you're waiting 14 years from the filing of copyright title (or 28 years in case the author(s) survive for the original term and elect to renew their filing the copyright title) to pirate the media?

Because that was the original copyright law in the US, you know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright [wikipedia.org]

Re:easy to judge others (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36637210)

I presume, then, that your act of civil disobedience occurs after the original copyright period?

Why should he? Since the original time span was extended it is only fair to start pirating the same amount of years before the original copyright would have expired.

Re:easy to judge others (1)

VAElynx (2001046) | about 3 years ago | (#36637248)

The hillarious thing is , that I mostly do - mainly because i don't give much of a damn about crap that's produced now. In the last two or so years, the only new thing i watched , and even bought was HTTYD
Most of the music i hear is from 80s and 90s as well.

Re:easy to judge others (1)

Bert64 (520050) | about 3 years ago | (#36637610)

If anything, copyright terms should actually have decreased...
200 years ago, reproducing a piece of work and distributing it was a time consuming and extremely costly process... Now you can publish online, worldwide, for the price of the bandwidth.
Software for instance is totally worthless once it becomes 14 years old, it will be well out of support, thoroughly superseded and may not even run anymore on currently available hardware.

Re:easy to judge others (1)

molnarcs (675885) | about 3 years ago | (#36637716)

I presume, then, that your act of civil disobedience occurs after the original copyright period? E.g., if you pirate music or movies from RIAA or the MPAA, you're waiting 14 years from the filing of copyright title (or 28 years in case the author(s) survive for the original term and elect to renew their filing the copyright title) to pirate the media?

Because that was the original copyright law in the US, you know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright [wikipedia.org]

You raise some good points there. It may seem a bit hypocritical if I didn't wait. Problem is, that the system itself is corrupt. I believe that copyright should belong to the author. 300 years the author exchanged his copyright for the privilege of promotion and publishing offered by publishing houses. This hasn't changed much for centuries. Producing art and selling it was prohibitively expensive. Not anymore. Artists no longer need to slave for the major labels. MTV is no longer the only source of music. There's this thing called the Internet, you know. And we have systems in place to help young and talented artists in self-publishing, and we see a great more deal of variety of pretty much everything. I'm not about to spend any money on an organization that 1) stole my and my children's access to culture 2) is working on restoring a world where they're the gatekeepers - they create celebrities, stars, and the so called "mainstream" crap that are inflicted on us through MTV and the likes.

Re:easy to judge others (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36637152)

You'd by Mass Effect 3?? Heh... Enjoy your DRM and old business models there, k?

Re:easy to judge others (3, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | about 3 years ago | (#36636790)

it always involves somebody else making sacrifices

Not really. People who hold copyrights are not entitled to them, they are granted them by an Act of Congress. Resolving these problems in a way that is most beneficial for people (not the corporations pushing these laws) is only proper.

Re:easy to judge others (3, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 years ago | (#36636796)

It's no surprise that such a statement doesn't come from one of the big copyright holders, it would be self defeating. I'm also not really so sure that they don't know themselves that the whole copycrippling is at the very least part of the copying problem. I'm also not so convinced that the goal is money. The goal is control.

Having a resource that is abundant and easy to multiply is useless. Because the abundance and ease of multiplication makes the resource worthless. Supply and demand at work. Someone selling simple air (not something fancy like pure Oxygen or "clean" air, just the stuff that's all around us) won't make a big deal. And that's basically what the content industry has without artificial shortening of the supply: Thin air. With content protection and keeping it in artificial short supply (i.e. monopolizing the seller's position), they create value.

Now, this makes inherently very little sense. If the whole ordeal only serves the purpose of driving people away from legally buying and only drives them towards copying, where's the gain? Where's the profit? Fewer people buy their stuff if they keep up this scheme. And I am fairly sure they even know that but have no choice.

The reason is the shareholder value of their stocks. What's their "assets"? Basically, thin air. They have nothing. Nothing but content. Nothing but a commodity that is easily multiplied and hence worthless. If they now don't at least TRY to limit the supply, analysts might catch up.

Re:easy to judge others (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36637206)

Having a resource that is abundant and easy to multiply is useless. Because the abundance and ease of multiplication makes the resource worthless. Supply and demand at work. Someone selling simple air (not something fancy like pure Oxygen or "clean" air, just the stuff that's all around us) won't make a big deal. And that's basically what the content industry has without artificial shortening of the supply: Thin air. With content protection and keeping it in artificial short supply (i.e. monopolizing the seller's position), they create value.

Somehow the viewpoint of the US ruling classes regarding air pollution has crept into your post. Did you intend for that to happen?

Re:easy to judge others (1, Troll)

westlake (615356) | about 3 years ago | (#36636914)

It seems that whenever someone has the solution for copyright problems, it always involves somebody else making sacrifices

Or, to put it another way, the "outdated business method" is to expect payment for something which cost $200 million to produce.

Sacrifice takes many forms.

Pixar can go producing amiable kid-safe titles like "Cars 2" with very little financial risk.

It is the animated film with an adult intelligence and impeccable geek cred like "The Incredibles" and "Wall-E" that is in danger.

Re:easy to judge others (3, Insightful)

hjf (703092) | about 3 years ago | (#36637228)

Or, to put it another way, the "outdated business method" is to expect payment for something which cost $200 million to produce.

It only costs $200 million to produce when it involves Big Hollywood Stars. Hollywood is to blame for creating a system that puts a handful of "cool" people that *need* to be in a movie to make it attractive to the people. People demand Megan Fox. Megan Fox charges you a few million to appear in the movie, the price skyrockets. Fuck that, Megan Fox is just a hot girl among the other 3.something billion women out there in the world.

The RIAA method is the same. Just create a handful of Big Pop Idols and make shitloads out of their image, merchandise, endorsements, and maybe some of their music too. Pay a few million to shakira is less risky that pay a few hundred thousands to Nobodies, because promoting 1 shakira is easier than promoting 100 Nobodies.

Do I care? No, I don't live in a big city. I never went to a big concert in a stadium. I don't care how big U2's show is this year cause I won't see it. And those huge, ridiculous shows are what the music industry is about. Does it matter to me if RIAA dies along with Shakira, U2, Madonna or whoever is at the top today? No. It doesn't change MY life. The death of RIAA would mean more music variety in radios (no RIAAman forcing you to play specific songs N times a day), and some expensive sound engineers (I think the term is "producer" in the music industry) "downgraded" to... sound engineers that get paid the same as any other working class guy. House prices in Beverly Hills dropping and thrift stores in Rodeo Drive. Oh noes! The losses!

Re:easy to judge others (2)

Volante3192 (953645) | about 3 years ago | (#36637654)

Flag on the statement. ...the "outdated business method" is to expect payment for something which cost $200 million to produce... is not what the argument is.

Most people will pay for media, legitimately, if they have reasonable access to it.

In a global environment, there is a problem when the US gets Drama episode Season 1 Episode 7 June 1, and the EU gets it Sept 17. People would acquire it legally if they had a legal channel to it. Take me for example. I'd love to purchase DVD sets of Whose Line Is It Anyway? seasons 3 to 10, but they're not available for sale in the US. Nor is The Chaser's War on Everything. (The former isn't available at all...well, outside streaming from BBC4 which I'd have to proxy to get through; the latter would require a multi-region DVD player and possibly an NTSC-PAL conversion of some sort, hoops not worth jumping through.)

The other part of the argument is the time span. Why should we still pay through the nose for media made a half-century before I was born? Did Sir Arthur Conan Doyle intend for lawyers to be reaping the benefits of Holmes long after his death? Imagine if copyright extended farther back. Eine Kleine Nachtmusik still funding the estate of Mozart. Shakespeare. Homer. I'm not a fan of the slippery slope argument, but could, 500 years into the future, people still have to pay Disney (or whatever company it's mutated into) for the rights to Mickey?

The world isn't black or white, it's just shades of brown...

Re:easy to judge others (3, Insightful)

paulsnx2 (453081) | about 3 years ago | (#36637038)

Every solution to every problem forces sacrifices. Funny though how nobody wants a solution that makes THEM sacrifice.

Every efficiency gain in technology sacrifices the products without that efficiency. Tech has seen it so much they take it for granted. Had the recording industry had to deal with the rise in value and the fall in revenue that technology companies have lived with, we would be buying whole libraries of music for use any way we would like to use it for a dollar and a quarter.

Yes, tech HAS seen orders of value for price paid go up by a factor of 1,000,000 or more. I bought a computer for 1000 dollars in the 80's with 4K of memory, and I use a laptop today I bought for 600 dollars with 6 Gig of memory.

Content just HAS to price its product to compete with reality, and the reality is that it doesn't cost as much to produce content, package content, and distribute content.

It costs orders of magnitude less (how many, I don't know) to make their product and sell their product. Yet we haven't seen orders of magnitude cut from the price of content.

It seems the only one allowed to sacrifice in the content game is the consumer.

Re:easy to judge others (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about 3 years ago | (#36637364)

Reminds me of a plot point from The Stainless Steel Rat for President ; one of the characters has the hobby of collecting universities [teleread.com] - it's noted that the expensive part is travelling to other worlds, because the university itself costs a pittance and fits into a small data storage device.

Sacrifice? Did you RTFA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36637740)

You obviously didn't RTFA and just jumped in for 1st post karma whoring (unless you consider a move to the modern age to be a sacrifice).

Finally someone talking sense. (2)

VAElynx (2001046) | about 3 years ago | (#36636606)

Let's hope that if enough of those with different interests to RIAA-like scum, and with full wallets to actually persuade the important folks up there will hold opinions like this, the situation will begin to change
Telecoms are quite the profitable enterprise and copyrightists are slowly beginning to step on more and more toes in their mad race for more profits.

Re:Finally someone talking sense. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36636774)

Devil's advocate here: What big company or government does NOT want the abuse of unlimited length copyrights to continue?

It gives governments an excuse to actively censor content and unplug people who they don't agree with for "IP violations".

It allows companies to be lazy and keep their well-worn IP for profit forever.

It helps ensure a one-to-many system to stifle free speech.

The sad thing, the copyright war is in its infancy, and things are going to get a lot worse. I'm expecting in 10 years that every desktop, server, or device will have a DRM stack enforced by a hardware chip, similar to how all TVs must have a V-chip. I also expect that it will be almost impossible to obtain a true "#" prompt on hardware without risking arrest, or the device being permanently banned from connecting to the Internet, similar to how consoles are blocked from XBL.

Re:Finally someone talking sense. (1)

hjf (703092) | about 3 years ago | (#36637262)

I'm expecting in 10 years that every desktop, server, or device will have a DRM stack enforced by a hardware chip, similar to how all TVs must have a V-chip.

You mean TPM? That idea never took off.

Groups (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36636622)

there are groups that want to abolish copyright entirely.

Actually, only one group wants to abolish copyright. That group is known as Sensible People.

Re:Groups (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36636688)

Also known as The People Who Create Nothing of Value.

Re:Groups (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36636966)

I agree this does account for the majority of the people who hold this position, but to be fair, one of the most outspoken is Richard Stallman, and he most certainly has produced something of value - GCC and Emacs.

Re:Groups (2)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 3 years ago | (#36636984)

Ouch. I'm afraid "Richard Stallman" and "sensible people" are disjoint sets.

Re:Groups (4, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | about 3 years ago | (#36636732)

Sensible people?

I had a job producing copyrighted content (video games). Believe me, nobody would have invested in creating these in the first place without the guaranteed monopoly that copyright protection provides.

If you don't like copyright, then that's fine. I can point you to a whole load of games that are actually pretty good fun that would have been produced with or without copyright protection. The thing is, the existence of copyright in no way harmed these efforts, just like it doesn't harm fan produced films, free music or other types of free software.

The thing is, some of us like the media that's produced as a result of the industry that relies on copyright protection. I don't think it would be at all sensible from my point of view

Re:Groups (2)

VAElynx (2001046) | about 3 years ago | (#36637006)

I had a job producing copyrighted content (video games). Believe me, nobody would have invested in creating these in the first place without the guaranteed monopoly that copyright protection provides.
What kind of argument is that? I mean, there are a ton of far more useful jobs a programmer can do. In the same way, the invention of the refrigerator spelled death for the ice industry, and whoever worked on mining and storing ice had to find another job related to his skills.

Re:Groups (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 3 years ago | (#36637090)

Yes. I currently write custom software for media presentations. Great. People can do what they want with it after the show. It's not about my job. I'll do fine whatever. It's about the customer. What do you want guys like me doing? Producing interactive demos to sell expensive toys, or writing video games that you'll actually benefit from directly?

Want me to be honest? (1, Troll)

VAElynx (2001046) | about 3 years ago | (#36637292)

I'd be rather you put your modeling skills to use in industry - stuff like finite element analysis and such.
Unlike the other two occupations, it's useful for something.

Re:Groups (2, Interesting)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 3 years ago | (#36637034)

Please do not listen to the "Fucking Idiots".
AKA. Those who want to "Abolish" copyright.

Copyright is good. Limited copyright encourages creation of new content. Then the new content gets to move to the public domain
after a period of time. This is awesome. Tons of new stuff pouring into the public domain. Enriching all with its wonders.

What copyright has become though is never ending. Nothing flows into the public domain anymore.
Hell a story not to long ago about the courts pulling shit out of the public domain.

We have to go back to move forward.

Re:Groups (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 3 years ago | (#36637044)

Believe me, nobody would have invested in creating these in the first place without the guaranteed monopoly that copyright protection provides.

No! People would not create them without some probable return on investment. Copyright is one possible way of making the return on investment probable, and is conceptually quite simple, but it's not the only way. For example, here's a business model that would work without copyright:

You create a simple demo and release it publicly. You ask people who like the idea and want to play the full game to invest, say, $40. When you have raised enough capital to develop the game, you do so and release it into the public domain. You then request investors for your next project. Guaranteed return (more so than with copyright, because you're getting your customers' money up front), but no requirement for copyright.

The problem, as TFA points out, is thinking like yours. This business model worked in the past, therefore it will work in the future and it's the government's job to ensure that it does. That isn't how the world works.

Re:Groups (1)

lostfayth (1184371) | about 3 years ago | (#36637546)

Or, in other words, look to VODO's example.

Re:Groups (2)

blahplusplus (757119) | about 3 years ago | (#36637106)

" Believe me, nobody would have invested in creating these in the first place without the guaranteed monopoly that copyright protection provides."

What a bunch of garbage, piracy has been around since the beginning of time and games were still being made even when entire countries (china) pirate almost completely.

In the real world games would still be produced, it's this lying to ourselves that people aren't creative/industrious and hence we need the copyright nanny state to intervene. Other businesses would pick up the slack of their was no copyright, it's too lucrative.

Re:Groups (1)

jeti (105266) | about 3 years ago | (#36637584)

And how long does this copyright need to be? Would your employers have invested in a title that they didn't expect to return the investment within the first ten years?

Re:Groups (2)

91degrees (207121) | about 3 years ago | (#36637638)

Oh no. Just some short term protection is needed. Honestly, I think a 2 year copyright term would probably be enough for the games industry. The main negative effect this would have would be to encourage a subset of gamers to run a constant 2 years behind the curve.

Time (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | about 3 years ago | (#36637680)

The problem is that copyright is too long: author's life + 70 years.
I think 20-30 years should be enough.

Re:Groups (3, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 years ago | (#36636878)

It's not sensible to abolish copyright. Content is no longer "art", the work of passion of a single person who might do it for the expression of their creativity. You have a lot of people involved in the process of creating what we today consider "good entertainment". From music to movies to games. Trust me, writing games ain't half the fun that playing is. It's a lot of crunch, a lot of stress, a lot of "why the fuck did I decide to get into this industry". These people want to get paid for what they do, and without copyright, there is very little chance that they can be.

What's wrong with copyright is not its existence. It's that copyright got out of control. It is no longer an incentive for the creative mind to create. It's an incentive to NOT create and live off a single cash cow to milk forever. Imagine I'm the greatest composer of all times. Mozart, Beethoven and Lennon rolled into one. And I create that ultimate, timeless and superawesome piece of music that EVERYONE loves. EVERYONE just wants to hear this style suddenly, and nobody can hit what people want as good as I can. But ... why should I keep working, why should I, the best person to ever write music in the history of mankind, write any more? I can milk that song forever. People will go ahead and remix it to get some breadcrumbs of the success, and I'll always cash in when they do. From now 'til I die. And beyond.

What's my incentive to create?
`
Copyright has to exist so people want to get together and create something special as a collective. If they can't reap the rewards for it, they most likely won't do it, or at least it will take a horribly long time since they can only do it in their spare time after they've done something to generate money so they can afford having a hobby. But it has to be limited so the best and brightest actually have a reason to continue creating. If I get more money from one creation than I could spend in a lifetime, why bother working anymore?

Re:Groups (1)

TexVex (669445) | about 3 years ago | (#36637056)

Real artists are driven by a primal urge to create. Throughout history and even now, most of them never make much money off of it, but they do it anyway. For them, creating is not work. It's their life's love.

People in general are driven by a primal urge to accumulate wealth. Throughout history and even now, those with a talent for making much more money than average people will continue to make money long after they have made more than they will ever need for themselves or their families. Stacking up money is not a means to an end, but an end unto itself.

So there you go. If you've got the art inside and it wants to get out, you're gonna let it out even if you're not getting paid. If you get paid for it, then you'll never be happy with your accumulated wealth. Either way, you're still motivated.

Re:Groups (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | about 3 years ago | (#36637668)

Real artists also had wealthy patrons subsidizing them for most of history.

yup (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36636632)

Far too often the pirated product is the superior product.

Re:yup (1)

cheeks5965 (1682996) | about 3 years ago | (#36636696)

[citation needed]

Re:yup (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36636816)

Server based DRM which requires a constant Internet connection and working server.
Disk based DRM which requires you to insert the CD into the drive and risk scratches and just to play.
DRM which messes around with the CD drive's software driver and can make it unusable.
DRM which prevents otherwise wine compatible engines from running on Linux.
Rootkits ...........

Re:yup (4, Informative)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 3 years ago | (#36636950)

How about the fact that copyrighted DVDs frequently come with "structure" DRM, in an attempt to discourage ripping (which is legitimate for personal use e.g. to play a movie on a tablet that doesn't have a DVD drive)? Or the fact that DVD players are designed to force people to watch certain tracks on the DVD before they can see the actual feature? Or the fact that DVD players refuse to play DVDs from different "regions?"

With DVDs alone, there are plenty of reasons that a person might opt to download "pirated" copies instead of dealing with the hassle themselves.

Re:yup (3, Informative)

mlts (1038732) | about 3 years ago | (#36636826)

It is sad, but there are a lot of cases where this is the truth:

DVDs -- disabling the PUO crap, so one doesn't have to sit through 45 minutes of previews for movies that flopped.

Games -- playing games that will not activate because the activation servers have been taken offline, or continuing to play a game after a video card was changed out, and the game will not activate.

Applications -- being able to continue use of a program even after hardware has been changed (RAM upgrade).

The best DRM for games is the simplest -- have a serial number to access multiplayer servers. This worked for almost a decade for NWN1. It keeps the freeloaders at bay, while ensuring that legit users have as good a gaming experience as possible.

Re:yup (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 years ago | (#36636964)

It always is in the presence of copy protection. Content is the only product where a "stolen" good is more valuable to its user than a purchased one.

When I buy a car, a TV, a computer, I get first of all warranty, something I will not have when it "fell off a truck". I will also have access to some kind of support if I have a question, I might even get someone to set it up for me for free from the store (or deliver it at least), I might be eligible for some additional goodies that come as part of the deal, some rebate on other products from the same company and so on. All these "goodies" do not exist when I steal the product. The support line will probably even use the information to hunt me down for calling them, nobody will aid me with any problems I'll have with the goods, I certainly am not eligible for any goodies (no contract, no goodies).

With content, it's everything in reverse. If I buy it, I get content that I may probably not play on the device I want to play it with, I can most likely not store on the storage medium I prefer, I might not be able to use it for as long as I please, I might be forced to endure ads or other junk that eats up my time and diminishes my experience, and I can probably neither shift time nor packaging or format. None of these effects exist when I "steal" it. I can store it on the medium I prefer, I can (to some degree) choose the device to play it on, I can shift format and time as I please and one thing's for certain: It WILL play on my device since I know before acquiring it whether the format is fitting to my replay tool since it will most likely be in some standardized format since the person creating it (the "cracker") actually wants to provide something I can use.

So yes, copy protection actually devalues a product from the point of the customer. It is worth less than a product without.

Re:yup (2)

JudgeFurious (455868) | about 3 years ago | (#36637168)

Indeed. There's a Blue Ray disc out there. It's got a movie on it I want to see and it comes with a bunch of features I don't care about and it's in a format (on this funky disc) that I find troublesome. So someone rips that movie off of that disc and turns it into an mkv file. Now I can watch that anywhere I can make an mkv file play. I can feed it to XBMC because it's only a few gigabytes in size (but still looks great to me) or I can feed it to Handbrake and turn it into an mp4 that my iPod likes. Blue Ray discs are cool but I consider a good quality mkv file to be the superior product based on what I can do with it.

(c) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36636636)

Either tell us how to copy it right or kindly give us right to copy :D

Re:(c) (1)

cheeks5965 (1682996) | about 3 years ago | (#36636736)

why? is the ability to copy something an inaliable right? if somebody else made something, they have a say over how it's used, including if it can be copied or not. If somebody wants to make the coolest album ever and then lock it in his home, that is his (copy)right.

Re:(c) (3, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 3 years ago | (#36636806)

is the ability to copy something an inaliable right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech [wikipedia.org]

if somebody else made something, they have a say over how it's used,

"Made something" -- you mean like, if I made a hammer and sold it to you, I could dictate how you use it? Oh, wait, we are not talking about making "something," we are talking about copyright law, which restricts the ability of people to speak freely (yeah, that does include repeating what someone else told you i.e. making a copy). The point of that restriction is to encourage artists and writers; nobody has a natural right to copyrights, it is just a compromise that was originally intended (in America) to ensure that people would have access to literature, art, and so forth.

Re:(c) (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 3 years ago | (#36636854)

is the ability to copy something an inaliable right?

Is anything an inalienable right?

if somebody else made something, they have a say over how it's used

According to current laws, yes.

Re:(c) (1)

cheeks5965 (1682996) | about 3 years ago | (#36637258)

so we agree...good.

Re:(c) (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 years ago | (#36636988)

According to our copyright law, actually the ability to copy is an inalienable right. Or rather, the permission to copy. It's in the law: You cannot effectively waive it and contracts requiring you to are void, at least in these parts.

rob malda (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36636702)

Rob Malda is hung like an ant.

And he's an asshole too.

This might be fun to watch (2)

willoughby (1367773) | about 3 years ago | (#36636772)

I'm eager to see if Sony (as in Sony/Ericsson) might have a response to this.

Situation this week in Argentina (4, Insightful)

bmuon (1814306) | about 3 years ago | (#36636776)

This week the online community managed to get the attention of the lawmakers in Argentina and paused the approval of a law that would instate a private copy levy on MP3 players, CDs, DVDs and even hard drives. This law would be similar to the ones already in place in Europe and that are being contested by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Those of us who got informed in time were able to watch the session of the Congress during which the proposed law was presented and different groups that represent copyright holders (record labels, filmmaking producers, etc) expressed their views about it. Many representatives of these groups were over 70 years old. By repeating phrases such as "artists have a right to make a living" they were continuously showing that they have no grasp of the current market. It was clear that most of them were there to be shown in camera and to be certain that their groups got included as recipients for the levy. There were no dissident voices, not one member of Congress or representative of technology groups that expressed arguments against the approval of the law. In fact, the only congressmen present were "ready to approve the law tomorrow" as one said.

Lobbying at its finest.

Physics.... (5, Insightful)

paulsnx2 (453081) | about 3 years ago | (#36636930)

...As capacity on networks and hard drives increase exponentially , sharing is going to expand.... exponentially.

Once upon a time, it would have been idiotic to claim that anyone that might hear a song as they walk down the street should pay a fee to do so. Content is increasingly moving through the population much faster/easier/pervasively than the sound of a performance. How the heck can anyone expect every transfer of content to result in a payment to multiple parties?

Oh, you would like EVERY SONG EVER RECORDED in the 1900's? Indexed? With reviews? Here, make a copy of this [ some future tech memory flavor ] card. You don't think that will be possible? You are not paying attention.

Copyright NEEDS to go away. It only exists to promote the production of content, and there isn't a shred of evidence that content is promoted by copyright today. There is every evidence that content is HINDERED by copyright.

I would like to podcast my Church's services. Can't, Copyright
I would like to listen to any radio station in the world over the Internet. Can't, Copyright, Broadcast right
I would like to toss my cable subscription in favor of streaming shows. Can't, Copyright and License restrictions.
I would like to record the occasional HD broadcast (given I have to have cable). Can't, Copyright and License restrictions and broken DVR by AT&T
I would like to listen to a book read to me while I drive from my Kindle. Can't Copyright

And even as I say I can't have all these things, really I can by just downloading what I want into the appropriate application. Today. Without any permission to do so from anyone.

And it is just going to get easier.

Content will be produced even without copyright, because content drives attention, and attention drives sells. Sells of what? Anything. Everything.

And people will ALWAYS pay modest amounts for packaged content. Because they are buying "ease of use", and "time". Why spend hours collecting and organizing pirated content when I can buy content already collected and organized? But mostly we CAN'T get our content packaged the way we want because of copyright. Because Big Content wants the past to continue. We pirate because we can't buy content at prices we can afford, and can't get it in the form we want to consume it in.

Big content wants to swallow the reductions in cost provided by the Internet (Little distribution costs, no manufacturing costs, no retail costs) but collect the same level of revenue on every sell. They want NOBODY else to make a dime. They want it all, mailed to them with a kiss, without providing any value to the consumer. Sorry, but that isn't the way it works.

Big content wants to make us all criminals by making content effectively illegal in the ways we want to consume content, unless we pay, and pay big. Higher prices even as the magnitude of available content explodes? How does that work with Supply and Demand? Oh wait! Copyright ISN'T about Supply and Demand, but how much Government Granted Monopolies can make the population pay for their content!

If you dig conspiracies, then Government wants the consumption of content illegal so they can be bigger, and can selectively put people in jail they don't like, and to suppress free speech, and as an excuse to exert more and more control over the population as a whole. If you don't care for conspiracies, then our politicians just want the contributions from Hollywood. Either way is bad for the common man.

We need to vastly cut back copyright, or accept that any of our children will have their future selectively demolished over copyright should they cross someone that doesn't like them. We need to cut back copyright unless we accept a desert of legal content in an ocean of available content. We need to cut back on copyright unless it is okay to censor the Internet and censor free speech and silence the citizens because some copyright might be infringed upon.

This is a rant. Yes, but it is also the truth.

Re:Physics.... (0)

brit74 (831798) | about 3 years ago | (#36637082)

I would like to podcast my Church's services. Can't, Copyright I would like to listen to any radio station in the world over the Internet. Can't, Copyright, Broadcast right I would like to toss my cable subscription in favor of streaming shows. Can't, Copyright and License restrictions. I would like to record the occasional HD broadcast (given I have to have cable). Can't, Copyright and License restrictions and broken DVR by AT&T I would like to listen to a book read to me while I drive from my Kindle. Can't Copyright

I actually can't figure out what you're talking about. The copyright to your churches services are held by your church, and they have every right to release them in whatever format they want. (In fact, it's generally useful for churches to give away all their sermons for free and make money on donations and tithes "for God".) I don't know much about the radio-station issue, but I have far more radio stations I can listen to for free on the internet than I have time for. As far as cable-subscriptions, why not watch hulu or hulu plus or get them on Amazon or somewhere else? As far as recording HD broadcasts, I really don't know. The reason I don't know is because *I've been without a TV since 2001 and I still watch TV on the internet thanks to Hulu and streaming media off of sites like Comedy Central*. As far as your Kindle reading books, why not get them in audio format? I've listened to plenty of audio books from the library - and I don't even have to drive to the library to get them; I just download them directly from the library website at a cost of zero dollars.

Here's a possible explanation for you (2)

Mathinker (909784) | about 3 years ago | (#36637162)

> The copyright to your churches services are held by your church

Not necessarily so, at least in their entirety. Perhaps they sing Happy Birthday (or some other music under copyright) as part of their church service?

> As far as cable-subscriptions, why not watch hulu or hulu plus

Perhaps the poster doesn't live in the US?

> I've listened to plenty of audio books from the library - and I don't even have to drive
> to the library to get them; I just download them directly from the library website at a cost of zero dollars

Kind of curious, which library is that? Please post its URL?

Re:Physics.... (1)

Legal.Troll (2002574) | about 3 years ago | (#36637352)

Holy idiotic screed, Batman!

You are an unhinged twit.

Re:Physics.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36637574)

Another sweaty-palmed, borderline-Asperger's Slashdot comment that is missing one big thing: PEOPLE.

PEOPLE make content.

PEOPLE create art.

PEOPLE create music.

PEOPLE invent, design, etc, etc.

Copyright is a way of enabling PEOPLE to make a living from their creativity.

If you take that away, you have a culture of one-hit-wonder amateurism.

What's up with Ericsson of late? (2)

NBolander (1833804) | about 3 years ago | (#36636990)

Sony Ericsson launches a boot loader unlocking program for their Android phones (and launches the pretty sweet xperia line). And now Ericsson takes a non facist stance on copyrights.
I don't know who kicked some sense into those companies, but whoever it was; thanks!

Re:What's up with Ericsson of late? (3, Interesting)

gstrickler (920733) | about 3 years ago | (#36637146)

Given Sony's other actions, I would expect them to put an end to such "foolishness" from Ericsson soon.

Until then, keep up the good work Ericsson.

You can copyright anything you like (2)

JudgeFurious (455868) | about 3 years ago | (#36637126)

I don't respect copyright any more than I worry about sodomy laws when I sleep with my wife or think of the sabbath when I buy alcohol on Sunday. At the very beginning of this "era" of copyright holders versus consumers I started with a simple idea. I want files. I don't want to buy anymore tapes, records, discs, mini-discs, or anything else the content owners can think of. I want files.I want to buy things once and be able to use that one purchased piece of music, television show, movie, e-book, whatever on any device I please. To me that's the whole point of this excercise. I can certainly see how the content owners don't want to give up their model of selling you the same shit every few years when your copy wears out or the technology changes but once we get to "files" that shit comes to a screeching halt. The way the content owners have fought to control what people do with the content has in my opinion created the environment we live in today. Now consumers resent that control to the point where they'll ignore the law without reservation to get out from under them. Appeal to us on the basis of "but you're stealing this artists work" and we don't care. The people accusing us if stealing from the content creators are themselves epically famous for fucking those creators out of every penny they could. I think the record labels, movie studios, game companys, and publishing houses have made things the way they are and I think that it all must eventually change if anyone is to continue to make money in these businesses. You can copyright something if you like. That doesn't mean you're assured of being able to profit from it. You need a market for it and you have to find a price point that market will accept. The $5 games you see in the iTunes store, the $1.29-.99 songs that are no longer tied to an album of material, and the $1.00 movie rentals of today could have probably headed off a lot of this if they'd appeared on the scene back when this all seemed to start with (roughly) the arrival of napster. I guess the tipping point was on them before they knew it but even today they fight to hold on to the kinds of profits they've come to expect. I'm sorry, they just aren't going to be there anymore.

Be careful of the echo chamber (1, Interesting)

brit74 (831798) | about 3 years ago | (#36637194)

Slashdot posts a lot of these articles legitimizing the pirate way. Be careful of getting into the echo chamber, because a lot of sites won't give you the story from the other side. First of all, I can't even figure out what the article's author is talking about. There's plenty of places to get stuff off the internet via legal means. You'd think that this article was written 10 years ago - before channels started streaming their programs on the internet, before iTunes, before internet radio, before Amazon mp3 downloads and Video-On-Demand. The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of people who pirate because they: get access to stuff they wouldn't have paid for *AND* because they get stuff for free that they would've paid for -- and free is always better than paying. To say that it's about reasonable prices and the ability to buy it on the internet seems ridiculously out of touch with the modern state of affairs. Does this guy know how much piracy there is of, say, the Humble Indie Bundle? That was easy to get on the internet and it was pay whatever you want. But, some people seem to act like "pirates pirate because they don't want to pay" is the conclusion that must be avoided at all costs, even when there's plenty of evidence.

A while back, I remember talking to one friend of mine, and I was happy that Amazon was selling last year's best-selling albums for $5 each (for a limited time). Her response? "Meh, you can get it all for free on the internet." That's right: for many people, it doesn't matter what the price is or whether or not they are available (legally) on the internet because piracy is always free. For many pirates, the internet is like the world's largest free-for-all, like someone gave them a credit card with no limit and they can run through a store and take everything they want. I'm also sensing that this guy doesn't know much about the economics of content creation. But, then, maybe he's just looking out for his own interests: he doesn't want to be in the business of cracking down on piracy and piracy costs his company nothing (in fact, he might even make money if he can charge customers money for their data-plans), so he's willing to be oblivious to the economics of content creation.

Funnily enough, the Humble I. Bundle (1)

VAElynx (2001046) | about 3 years ago | (#36637378)

Still made quite the money, as do plenty of Free To Play MMO's on the internet (eg. World of Tanks).
In other words, what you need is a) to adopt methods (as the above) that aren't endangered by piracy much, because you are providing an actual service, not just copiable data , and , on the other hand, notice that there's no use wanting it all - there will be some piracy losses, but there is such a thing as acceptable loss, where trying to fight it is unrentable.
Note Starcraft for example. It had primitive copy protection, and got pirated a lot, but it made Blizzard a profit and is sold in some numbers even now.

Re:Be careful of the echo chamber (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36637416)

It's true that many, probably most downloaders just want to get something for nothing. However there's still some elasticity of demand. When the price is low enough, even the most prolific downloader (yours truly) will buy the product. In other words, yes, "free is better than paying" but paying a little and getting legitimate product is better then "free" with a risk of malware and/or legal action.

Re:Be careful of the echo chamber (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36637436)

You're not factoring in opportunity cost. People live in virtual penury due to the way consumption is taught in the US. Accruing 5 dollars more debt when you can get something for free is completely stupid (economically speaking - this remains true regardless of the wisdom of going into debt). What is more, they may prefer to go out to eat with their disposable money, or do any other number of wise or unwise things.

You may have scads of disposable income, a lot of people in the kinds of professions common among /. posters do, but most folks do not.

Now, this perception could change, if people thought "huh, I can have that now for 5 dollars or it will be free (out of copyright) in 5 years" they may just be more willing to make that choice to sacrifice disposable income for it. Right now it's "pay or never".

The one right I never hear anyone give a crap about is peoples' right to their own culture (yes, even crappy pop music counts as culture). Peoples' culture is the sole reason we granted copyright (and granted rights are different, they are not intrinsic and can be revoked). If culture is only granted to those with certain, financial means it's not terribly suprising people reject this proposition.

Re:Be careful of the echo chamber (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about 3 years ago | (#36637516)

Most legal internet video is intentionally crappy quality, and most music is still expensive. $5 is not cheap for an album with at most 4 songs that are bearable to listen to when Netflix offers unlimited streaming movies for $8. I suggest content creators avail themselves of the internet free-for-all to save themselves money too, and maybe come to realize that the best they will ever do is hardly worth anyone's time, let alone money.

Re:Be careful of the echo chamber (4, Insightful)

jools33 (252092) | about 3 years ago | (#36637728)

The article is written from a European perspective. I live in Sweden - if I want to watch a televised game of rugby from the UK - the only way that I can do this is to connect to an "illegal" p2p stream. There is no rugby at all on Swedish TV - not even 5 minutes a month. The reason is that the rights holders refuse to allow the distribution of the games outside of the traditional catchment pool that they know they can sell to. They are not interested in selling to a small expat audience in a foreign country. Its artificial border like restrictions like these that he's writing about. Ask why is the BBC restricted solely to the UK? - and everyone in the UK will answer - because we have to pay the licence. Why not allow a licence across Europe though? Why artificially control the audience without providing any legal means to view the content to those you chose to leave out? The result is that the BBC content is widely pirated.

"Brilliant" and IN NO WAY self-interested (1)

Legal.Troll (2002574) | about 3 years ago | (#36637232)

amirite???

Youtube can sell this stuff (1)

Twinbee (767046) | about 3 years ago | (#36637440)

It's a brain-dead suggestion, but why can't YouTube have a "buy this track" button, and sell the music shown for say 50p or so. I'd buy tons of stuff, stuff I'd never have a chance of buying through any other means. I want convenience though. One or two clicks, and be able to save it as non-DRM mp3.

My local library is my best offence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36637540)

My local library has tons of CDs and movies, between what's available there and online, I finally have reasonable access to almost any creative works I want.

No prior art for common sense (1)

carpenoctem63141 (2266368) | about 3 years ago | (#36637596)

Read the title initially as saying that Ericsson was trying to copyright common sense. Which seems pretty reasonable to me, there's definitely no prior art on common sense on the internet.

How social contracts break down (1)

istartedi (132515) | about 3 years ago | (#36637762)

In the late 90s, when Napster first burst on the scene I sided with the rights holders. Now I'm mostly on the other side. Why? Because of the disproportionate punishments meted out, and the larger problem of corporations buying laws (e.g, Sonny Bono extension act).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>