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!

The Case For Piracy

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the arrr-me-hearties dept.

Piracy 318

An anonymous reader writes "A mainstream media outlet has published an article called 'The Case for Piracy. The writer shows how copyright has been hijacked by corporations and that publishers are their own worst enemies. 'One of the main reasons we all have anti-piracy slogans embedded in our brains is because the music industry chose to try and protect its existing market and revenue streams at all costs and marginalise and vilify those who didn't want to conform to the harsh new rules being set.' There's a lot in the article that Slashdot readers can relate to, and it's interesting that so many replies seem to agree with the author."

cancel ×

318 comments

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

Change cannot be stopped (5, Insightful)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791446)

The fundamental problem Strong Copyright has with piracy is that technology is going to *continue* to advance. This will make copying even easier in the future than it is now. Encryption and Peer to Peer networks are going to increase in power, and will be easier to use.

The only way to maintain Strong Copyright is through government force. Increasingly it isn't about stopping people from doing "bad things" like "stealing" content. Instead it becomes a Government managed and controlled system for collecting income for a few favored parties.

Strong Copyright is about protecting the public. It is about protecting the few at the top that can rake in the dough.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (4, Informative)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791500)

"Strong Copyright is *not* about protecting the public"

sheesh.... No matter how hard I try to proof read, I still screw up! We need to be able to edit our own posts Slashdot!

Re:Change cannot be stopped (1)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791858)

"Strong Copyright is *not* about protecting the public" sheesh.... No matter how hard I try to proof read, I still screw up! We need to be able to edit our own posts Slashdot!

And yet there are those select few who think you were correct the first time.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (2, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791902)

It is about protecting the public, but not in the sense that the GP believes.

It is about protecting the public by keeping an incentive for the produces of works of art, to keep producing. That incentive is financial compensation. It allows them to produce these works as a job, rather than in their free time, allowing them to produce more. This then provides more options for public consumption. There's arguments for some kind of patronage system - but what incentive do the patrons have - if it is a painting, something where the original can be easily determined and have a set value, something displayable on a wall for all to see, with appreciating value, then that is one thing. But with books, music and movies, that doesn't work so well. These patrons usually don't won't money by dumb luck, they have it because they want to make it - that means they are not going to pay thousands to millions of dollars for something that will give them a few hours of enjoyment, unless they can expect to get some financial compensation back - usually in excess of what they pay.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (5, Insightful)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792152)

Copyright extends 70 years after the Content Producer is dead and buried. If more than half the term is after they are dead, how is that an incentive for the producers of works of art to keep producing?

Have you bought a new Cash album lately? Watched a new Hope movie? A new Carry Grant film?

How about a new hit from the folks that brought you "Happy Birthday?" (I would have used their name, but we don't really know who wrote it, but Time Warner Music still gets 2 Million a year off its copyright anyway).

I think there would be more incentive to produce if Content Providers had to compete with a larger body of free work. Their stuff would have to be better to sell, but hey! They could actually use "Happy Birthday" in their movie without paying Time Warner Music (That Great Content Producer!) 10 grand for the right to use a song written in the late 1800's.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (0)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792310)

I didn't say that copyright wasn't broken. I said that piracy is not the solution. Even so, that incentive of profit, EVEN AFTER THE DEATH OF THE CREATOR, is part of the incentive of these investors to help fund the creators in the first place.

Is the system being abused by those on top: hell yes. Should copyright laws be fixed to prevent this: again, hell yes.
Piracy doesn't fix them.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (0)

datavirtue (1104259) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792312)

The corp owns the copyright....and they live forever.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792362)

Oh, and indie work isn't piracy.

Also, it's only when indie work is good (which in my experience, it rarely is, even compared to the shit produced by content mills), will it be sufficient motivator to produce better stuff.

What we need is more content publishing companies, that way these companies *really* have to compete with each other for their artists, and maybe support more artists overall - which means competing with each other for peoples money, and lowering prices as well.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (3, Interesting)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792176)

You're making an argument AGAINST strong copyright. Strong copyright diminishes incentive to produce new work, and increases pressure on new writers due to retarded "you copied me" issues. Art has traditionally influenced other art, and one fundamental part of locking down copyright is to charge for anything that has been significantly influenced by your art.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (0)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792466)

No, I'm not.

People tend to want "fresh" media. How many people do you know that go out and by movies 40 years old? 20 years old? 10 years old? less than 5 years old? How about movies? This still holds fairly well for music, though it does break down for books.

As the older stuff reduces in sales, the content creators still need to make more media, so they can actually live off of their work.

My bigger point, though I didn't explicitly state it, was that piracy, and a system that helps/encourages it doesn't help at all. I removes any incentive for content creators to create, other than the joy of creation, and you can't use that to buy dinner or a roof over your head.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (2, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792182)

You don't need STRONG copyright for that. 10 years has that covered easily if you hold that notion to be true. Also, copyright is a weird holdover from medieval economics. Legal monopolies pretty much only make sense for utilities, and the economics of artistic works is the polar opposite.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792492)

There's a difference between quantity and quality.

10-20 years of STRONG copyright is fine. 70 years is pretty absurd, if for nothing else, except for a few rarities, only books have much value if over 20 years old.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37792300)

No one disputes short term protection. But even trolls like you must know that Elvis hasn't made a record since the 70s. Why are his 50s recordings still under copyright? Yes, half a century later, decades after his death, his recordings are still protected by law. And as soon as they are about to expire, the protection period will be extended once again. Some Beatles music should be public domain by now, the copyright extensions ensure they aren't. If the copyright was good enough 60 years ago to protect arguably the two biggest assets in the music industry back then, why do they need perpetual extensions?

Re:Change cannot be stopped (5, Informative)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792882)

It is about protecting the public by keeping an incentive for the produces of works of art, to keep producing. That incentive is financial compensation.

Funny, art was created for thousands of years before it was turned into a commodity. The common theme of "no one will create if they don't receive compensation for it!" is simply not true: Look at all the free software that is all over the web. Look at all the self-produced music all over Youtube. Look at all the self-produced artwork on DeviantArt. Look at all the self-produced novels being printed via Amazon.

What we're seeing today is a bunch of huge corporations that wrested control of artistic works they didn't in themselves create and attempt to hold on to the rights to it forever, long after the death (and often against the wishes of) the person that actually created it. Piracy is helping destroy their monopoly on content dispersal through mainstreaming other methods of distribution.

So yes, while we can all shed a tear for the millions of Metallica songs that were stolen via Napster (I guess), I think we're missing the greater benefits to society as a whole that came out of it. Not so good for Big Media, and not so good for the lucky few content creators they allow to become wealthy in order to attract more content creators they can suck up into the machine, but good for consumers.

We've been making art since we first started scratching designs into rocks and painting on cave walls...and I am quite sure that the concept of paying for said art came much, much later.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791916)

We need to be able to edit our own posts Slashdot!

Never! Just do like you just did. Make a subsequent post. Fixed comments are what keeps Slashdot ahead of the rest.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (2)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792170)

ever! Just do like you just did. Make a subsequent post. Fixed comments are what keeps Slashdot ahead of the rest.

Funny that you left the Subject alone. Ironic, no?

Re:Change cannot be stopped (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792378)

Guarantee that by the end of the day his original comment will have been modded down at least once, and commented on by at least three people who won't bother to read his correction and immediately fly to refute the accidental notion that "Strong Copyright is about protecting the public." There's already one comment to his correction that seems to have missed the fact that he was replying to his own comment and is misinterpreting the grandparent post. I don't necessarily agree with his initial post, but it was reasonably well thought out and mostly coherent; it's a real shame that one small typo is going to get it a lot of pointless commentary and likely moderation which completely misses his point.

I understand that by disallowing editing they're trying to protect the moderation system, but surely there's another way. I'd be perfectly happy if edits cleared moderation or something.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (2)

Ja'Achan (827610) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792500)

"Strong Copyright is *not* about protecting the public"
sheesh.... No matter how hard I try to proof read, I still screw up! We need to be able to edit our own posts Slashdot!

Actually - they won't allow you to edit Slashdot posts in order to protect the public.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37791590)

The fundamental problem with laws against murder is that weapon technology is going to *continue* to advance. This will make killing people even easier in the future than it is now. Assault rifles and incendiary explosives are going to increase in power, and will be easier to use.

The only way to maintain laws against murder is through government force. Increasingly it isn't about stopping people from doing "bad things" like "killing people". Instead it becomes a Government managed and controlled system for collecting income for a few favored parties.

Hi Jack (1)

oGMo (379) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791722)

Jack Valenti, is that you? You still believe that copying a song is the same as killing someone? That protecting lives is less than or equal to protecting the bottom line of MPAA (and RIAA) members?

Thought so! Just checking...

Re:Hi Jack (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37792048)

I think the point of the GP was more to state that difficulty of enforcing a law is a bad logic to remove it. But you are probably so branwashed with a sense of entitlement that you should get whatever the hell you want without paying for it, that you don't give a damn about silly things like "logic" that stand in your way.

Re:Hi Jack (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792332)

The enforceability of laws is quite important. Prohibition and the war on drugs may have had good effects if they could be reasonably enforced, but because they couldn't be effectively enforced, laws against them do more harm than good. While weapons technology has increased, so has medical technology and standard of living, which affect the number of people who die and are shot, respectively. And the entitlement is on the side of the rightsholders. I don't think many 'pirates' think they should be able to get what they want without paying. I can speak for myself, and I only think I can get what I can get without paying. If someone makes something I want freely available, I will likely get it. If nobody makes it available, I will not get it.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (2)

TarMil (1623915) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791804)

Talk about fallacy.

The reason why people don't kill so much is not that it's hard. It's always been easy to kill someone when you want to.

The reason why people don't kill so much is that it's against their morality. On the other hand, it's not against their morality to listen to music.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (3, Insightful)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791906)

Actually, if you are not murdering people, those that don't die benefit. Mostly this is the public, as weapons are rarely trained on the rich and the wealthy that can afford to avoid dangerous situations and pay for protection. It is the common man that mostly gets mowed down. And if the government is preventing the sell of new weapons systems to people, then those at the top are getting punished.

You are trying to tie the idea of the Government enforcing laws that protect the public with Strong Copyright which does not protect the public but just the favored few. Any amount of effort looking at the differences between copyright and weapons systems, and it is clear that your analogy totally breaks down. The right thing (control weapons to save lives) benefits the public and takes away from the profits of those at the top. The right thing (weaker copyright to grant more freedoms and less liability as people share and develop content) benefits the public and takes away from the profits of those at the top.

In the case of copyright, "those at the top" are not the actual content producers by far and large. Copyright now extends 70 years AFTER the content producer is dead and buried. How is copyright about funding content producers if more than half its term is after the content producer is dead?

Try again.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (-1, Flamebait)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792230)

I look forward to living in this dream "utopia" of yours, where to find any good art (be it book, movie, music) whatever, means I have to sift through thousands of pieces of indie crap, because nobody can afford to make anything good because they don't get compensated for it. Yes, I know, most of the profit is gouged by those at the top, and there is something wrong there, however - enough still goes to the people who make the art, to help them continue and make more, without having them need to be side tracked with other things. I'm glad my favorite authors, musicians and movie-creators of various sub-occupations don't have to work 9-5 jobs outside of their creative jobs, just so they can survive. This allows them to produce more stuff worth my time (and in the latter case, tools to make special effects that help with suspension of disbelief)

Mind you, the mass produced stuff of Hollywood and the record companies is usually garbage, but I have a better time finding the few good bits they produce as compared to the swathes of crap produced by the indie culture, who's only "value" is that it's not mainstream, providing their audiences with a nice feeling of rebellion without risk.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37791936)

Nice, oh except that is a straw man argument. You can not compare Murder to Copyright infringement. One is a heinous act and the other is Murder.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37791756)

I agree, let's let cops shoot people in the heads for downloading an mp3.
WE can give them advanced armor and technology and call them Judges...

I AM THE LAW!

Re:Change cannot be stopped (1)

Thiez (1281866) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791758)

> Encryption and Peer to Peer networks are going to increase in power, and will be easier to use.

There's really no need for encryption to increase in power. Unless new weaknesses are found, most of the standard encryption schemes will take far longer (by many orders of magnitude) than a human lifetime to break. For the purpose of piracy, that should be long enough; you can't get prosecuted for copyright infringement when you're dead.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (1)

mistiry (1845474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791874)

However, as technology increases, the amount of time necessary to break today's encryption schemes will be reduced, thus making the need for stronger encryption schemes.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792232)

However, as technology increases, the amount of time necessary to break today's encryption schemes will be reduced, thus making the need for stronger encryption schemes.

A 256-bit secret key algorithm is already unbreakable through brute force by any means known; the problem is that encryption is useless for copy protection if you also have to give the recipient the key.

You'd have to build a computer which was 'secure' from the ground up and wouldn't even boot an operating system which wasn't signed by a 'trusted' developer, which had DRM built into the core all the way through to the output device.

Oh, wait...

Re:Change cannot be stopped (1)

Thiez (1281866) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792288)

No, it won't. In the absence of cryptographic weaknesses, a 256-bits key can never be brute-forced, not even in theory.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792872)

Encryption is feasible now that would require the entire mass of the universe to be working on breaking it and still be infeasible in the lifetime of the universe. For most algorithms, adding one bit to the key length adds a small (fixed) amount of complexity to the process of encoding or decoding, but doubles the effort required for a brute force attack. You don't need to do this very many times before you end up with something that is completely secure against brute forcing on a classical computer (quantum computers change the rules somewhat). Encryption has not been broken by throwing more processing power at the problem for decades. It is now always cracked by flaws in the implementation or (very occasionally) by flaws in the algorithm.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (4, Interesting)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791884)

The secondary problem with "strong copyright" is that copyright has become disconnected from the lifetime of the medium on which the performance/art/work is rendered.

Copyright is what now, 95 years for "work for hire" and life-of-author-plus-70 for independent? Compare that to the sales lifetime (or even TWICE the sales lifetime) of a standard video game console - a "decade lifetime" is pushing it. Atari 2600's and original NES units are considered antiques. Good luck even FINDING a working Vectrex.

Hell, even for non-gaming - a while back Slashdot had a story about a guy who built a homebrew Cray-1 replica [slashdot.org] . His biggest problem? FINDING SOFTWARE TO TEST IT WITH. Nobody kept the discs around, and the few discs that are even findable today have succumbed to bit-rot.

From that article:
After searching the internet exhaustively, I contacted the Computer History Musuem and they didn’t have any either. They also informed me that apparently SGI destroyed Cray’s old software archives before spinning them off again in the late 90s. I filed a couple of FOIA requests with scary government agencies that also came up dry. I wound up e-mailing back and forth with a bunch of former Cray employees and also came up *mostly* dry. My current best hope is a guy I was able to track down that happened to own an 80 MB ‘disk pack’ from a Cray-1 Maintenance Control Unit (the Cray-1 was so complicated, it required a dedicated mini-computer just to boot it!), although it still remains to be seen if I’ll actually get a chance to try to recover it.

Under current "copyright", his asking for software copies is technically a violation of copyright.

"Copyright" has ceased to be what it originally was. The promise of copyright is that the protected creation is protected for a limited time, WHENCE IT SHALL ENTER THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND BE AVAILABLE. Increasingly, copyright has instead become a fucking scam to promote forced obsolescence and premature death-of-product and prevent even historians from preserving the work for posterity.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (4, Insightful)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792056)

Strong Copyright is NOT about protecting the public. It is about protecting the few at the top that can rake in the dough.

No doubt about this, the truth is the public can't defend itself the money power because only a small portion of the population even understands the issues correctly to make any kind of sound decision regarding policy.

Re:Change cannot be stopped (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37792304)

Advocatus diaboli mode:

Governments can keep passing more laws. Take ACTA for example. With those laws comes more ability to hunt down and arrest/sue people.

With this in mind, we will be seeing ever more demands on ISPs to retain information, either logs, packet headers, or even entire dumps of subscriber connections, legal attempts to stomp out anonymity. Of course, the next step are VPNs, but those are being attacked, either by being demanded to keep logs, or being banned from use as in Pakistan.

We also see hardware getting more locked down, except perhaps in the Android arena (assuming Google unlocks Moto bootloaders.) Windows 8 requires a keyed BIOS to boot.

So, piracy isn't getting much easier. P2P for the most part is still limited by trackers, and is slowly being pushed to private sites. Yes, stuff can get cracked, but there are more things in the process these days. First, with Windows it was just finding a CD key. Now it is dealing with activation, genuine checks, and with Windows 8, getting around hardware level signatures.

The one ironic thing about all this. All the software companies said that if piracy was gone, prices would go down.

Bullshit. Cost of things are going up. Consoles require network fees, costs to DLC, having to buy Doritos to compete with the n00bs who drink Mountain Dew and get XP bonuses. When piracy is conquered, the software companies can jack up prices into the stratosphere. However, when piracy is common, software companies have to be reasonable on their pricing.

I've also heard a reply to this by someone I know who works in the industry. "Prices are high because people have to pay the price for their past piracy."

So, when piracy loses, we all lose.

This doesn't mean that IP infringement is OK, but it shows that without any controls, software companies can price gouge to their delight.

Music (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791448)

When the music store wants to carry the bands I listen to and when the iTunes store and other like stores want to carry the Music I like I'll stop downloading.

Re:Music (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37791606)

When the music store wants to carry the bands I listen to and when the iTunes store and other like stores want to carry the Music I like I'll come up with new ways to rationalize pirating.

FTFY

Re:Music (3, Insightful)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791628)

Not me. The only time I will ever buy music is from the band itself at a show, or directly from the band online. Or unless I know that the publisher has absolutely no ties to the RIAA or any RIAA-related entity, which is pretty hard to determine. Anything that comes out on an RIAA-related label I will download illegally, in hopes that artists will eventually stop signing to those bloodsuckers. Yes, it hurts for the artists, I make no illusions about that, but when you make a deal with the devil you must accept the consequences... Stop signing with RIAA labels and you will get my money.

Re:Music (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791948)

I have nothing against buying music, it's just that I can never find the music I want and the stores wont order the cd's in for me.

Re:Music (1)

chronoglass (1353185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792146)

and the intarwebs doesn't have it either! it's so underground it can only be obtained illegally, that way listening to it is illegal, which is why it's so underground.

Re:Music (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792306)

Trying to get music shipping into Canada will cost you more then a house, so like I said the music store should carry it. or iTunes store should carry it.

Re:Music (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792636)

I'm curious. Where can you find a band that is not on iTunes? I know a guy who self-produced an album literally in his garage using his guitar, a performance mike, and his computer. His album is on iTunes. It's literally so easy to be on iTunes that someone with no production equipment at all can throw his self-produced CD-R released "for my friends and family" strumming up there. Why would any band that had any vague idea that they might possibly, someday, perhaps want to make any money at all off their album not put it up?

Re:Music (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792816)

the lord weird slough feg, There is a band that iTunes is missing music from. Thats just one example. You can search a lot of extreme black metal bands that also don't appear.

Piracy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37791468)

A better product than you can buy for ANY amount of money.

At a price you just can't beat.

Havent had any of my evil pirated 1's and 0's suddenly decide i'm not the owner and quit working for no reason. Or just because it's now friday. Or had to jump thru multiple steps to use what i didn't pay for. And when friends say 'hey thats cool, can i check it out?' I can say sure. And give it to them right now.

But stuff i bought.. Software, music and movies have all screwed me on those points many many MANY times in the past. And i just don't want to play that way anymore.

Sorry. Try again to get my money.

Re:Piracy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37791910)

+10 agree. Wish I could remember my password and log in 'cause I'd give you some mod points !

Re:Piracy. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792278)

user: cmdrtaco
pass: cowboynealrocks47

Re:Piracy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37792154)

http://www.thebuzzmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/why-people-pirate-movies-steps-to-watching-video.jpg

Reduce publisher/label overhead (1)

concealment (2447304) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791526)

When a writer writes a book, it is sold to the consumer for $25 and the writer sees $1 of it. The same is true of CDs/iTunes, where we pay about $10-15 and the musician sees $1.

It's unlikely the re-sellers in brick-and-mortar stores can take less of a cut; they have really high overhead.

The question we need to ask is whether labels and publishers can change their high overhead and still put out a quality product.

I think we'd all feel better knowing more of the money went to the creator of the music/book we're enjoying, and less to the bloated organizations behind it.

Re:Reduce publisher/label overhead (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791814)

"It's unlikely the re-sellers in brick-and-mortar stores can take less of a cut; they have really high overhead."

Like executives that must make 7 figures and stockholders that demand dividend payments.

Eliminate the greed and you eliminate the really high overhead.

Re:Reduce publisher/label overhead (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792030)

Wrong. Both bookselling and publishing are competitive markets. They are becoming less so because of Amazon on the one hand and Barnes and Noble on the other, but they remain competitive, and the profit margins are very thin compared to most businesses.

That's why there are only a few significant publishers left in America.

Re:Reduce publisher/label overhead (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792180)

You're better off trying to commit genocide than eliminating greed. The pirates are just as greedy as the people that cause the ridiculous prices.

Re:Reduce publisher/label overhead (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792210)

Strike that, the pirates are more greedy than the publishers and recording industry. They want the pirates $15 and they'll give music. Pirates want their $15 dollars and the music.

Re:Reduce publisher/label overhead (1)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792052)

I think that's part of the issue.

Publishers and Labels don't do enough to warrant having such a large share of the pot. Sure they give access to venues and other places, but they often times have paid to have exclusive deals with such places.

I think there would always be a place for a music label, but not how they have it setup now.

duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37791560)

ummmm, did anyone on the internets not know this already?

simple thought experiment:

how much music did you have access to in the early 90's?

how much music do you have access to now?

"Mainstream" (1)

StArSkY (128453) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791568)

Mainstream - maybe,maybe not. But to see a balanced view from a government owned media outlet is encouraging.

To be fair (4, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791622)

Copyright is good. Linux uses it, news sources use it, our society practically requires it to function properly. Good copyright, that is, copyright that promotes the progress of science and the useful arts. Not the life+70 (or whatever the hell it is now, I can't even keep track) bullshit we have now. That? That hinders science and progress and promotes stagnation. That's all that does. Piracy? Well, it's a counter-active force to a broken system, which is itself broken conceptually. It is a practical, if unfortunate, necessity.

To all media companies out there: give us what we want (not broken with DRM) and when we want it (not 9 months to 3 years later), and you'll see piracy decline significantly. Oh, and make new innovative product rather than coasting off the work of an earlier genius (Disney, that comment is directed precisely at you.)

I suppose this is too much to ask. So, then, is paying for the same old recycled crap the media produces. So, people won't.

Re:To be fair (2)

RogerWilco (99615) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792160)

>

To all media companies out there: give us what we want (not broken with DRM) and when we want it (not 9 months to 3 years later), and you'll see piracy decline significantly.

I think you missed one. I would phrase it like this: Give us what we want, when we want it, and where we want it.

The last one is important too, I basically mean format shifting should be allowed and trivial. I have no use for the latest DVD on my smartphone.

Re:To be fair (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792250)

I included that (mentally) under the "what" part, but yes, that too.

Re:To be fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37792428)

Not to mention geographic limitations.

Re:To be fair (1)

Zanix (684798) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792276)

To all media companies out there: give us what we want (not broken with DRM) and when we want it (not 9 months to 3 years later), and you'll see piracy decline significantly. Oh, and make new innovative product rather than coasting off the work of an earlier genius (Disney, that comment is directed precisely at you.)

Don't forget that we want it for a reasonable price. Most of us are willing to pay for something that we consider reasonable. I'm happy to watch TV shows on a company's website that includes commercials but if the company doesn't offer it, I'm not going to go out and buy or rent the full season just to watch one episode. I'm happy to purchase a game that I can play at home and then sell to someone else if I decide I don't want it anymore. I'm not going to pay the same price for a game that I cannot play without internet, I cannot sell to my friends, and I only can install on my own machine so many times before it stops working. Price shouldn't be dependent upon what the company thinks something is worth, it should be dependent upon what people will pay for it.

Look at what Itunes did for music. They provided a way to purchase songs for a reasonable price and people paid for them. Piracy will never go away, but punishing pirates is not the way to get rid of it. Instead they need to get rid of the reason for the piracy and most people will happily conform.

Interesting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37791638)

It's not interesting to see that replies agree with the author. The author is appealing to the absolute lowest common denominator argument that two wrongs make a right, and using examples that piss everyone off. It would be more interesting if there were a few non-sheep around who could see through this fallacy and point it out, but hell that rarely even happens here, amongst supposedly intelligent readers; why would it happen on a mass-market TV website?

No Alternative (1)

Ganty (1223066) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791670)

Many of the latest movies are not shown here in English, downloading the DVD is therefore the only way I can watch the movie.

Ganty

I am no Pirate! (5, Insightful)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791692)

I don't download music, I don't torrent music, I don't P2P music.

I am a model citizen.

More about me:

* I am over 50
* I have bought maybe 10 Albums/Cassettes/8-Tracks/Digital Downloads in my *Entire* life.

Wouldn't the music industry love having an entire market of folks just like me!

I am also no Pirate! (1)

stomv (80392) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792254)

I too don't download music, don't torrent music, don't P2P music. I too am a model citizen.

More about me:

  * I purchase 50-100 CDs per year.
  * Every single one of them is purchased used, from used record stores, from Goodwill et al, from Amazon resalers, from friends, from garage sales. I rarely pay more than $3. I then rip them to mp3 and store the CDs in wine 12-pack boxes in my closet.

Wouldn't the music industry love having an entire market of folks just like me!

P.S. I'm willing to wait to find the CDs I want the most, both because (a) I'd prefer to have a smaller environmental footprint and the used market allows that, and (b) because I despise the way the RIAA has handled itself, and I don't want them to get my cash.

Re:I am no Pirate! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37792292)

I have downloaded songs I wanted to hear.

I am 24 years old.

In the past 10 years, I have personally purchase over 50 CDs, and more than 30 full album downloads, not to mention individual tracks that I actually purchased here and there.

Because of my first statement, though, the music industry would happily see me tried, tarred, and feathered (not in that order).

Re:I am no Pirate! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37792480)

I would also like to add that of the 50 CDs, only a handful were purchased used.

Might get some good music then (1)

BOUND4DOOM (987004) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792734)

I am betting none of the music you purchased was Beiber or Spears. Perhaps if they were all like you we would finally get some good music. I am 40 now and I used to purchase a lot of music. A cassette tape then CD a week. I still buy music once in a while, but maybe 5-6 albums a year. Simply because most new pop music sucks. This month is the first month I purchased 2 new albums in the same month in a very long time. Five Finger Death Punch and Evanescence both released new albums this month. However there is nothing else I am looking forward to. If you are wondering, no I do not just like metal. I like classical and some rap and a wide variety. Just no country twang stuff. Still only maybe 5-6 albums a year are even appealing to me. I will buy music if they make good music. Also they really need to find a new way to market music. Radio stations have also gone away for me in the midwest. I stream radio from LA now. Most radio here went pop, country twang, or sports talk radio. When I was younger MTV used to play music videos, and I would watch and listen and find new bands and new music. However that path of advertising music has gone away. So if it doesn't stream anywhere I don't know it exists.

New Rules (4, Insightful)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791720)

Internet restored old rule: You can make money as an artist IF you are willing to perform your art in LIVE and there is audience willing to pay for it. There was brief window in history, like 100 years, where this rule was changed in a strange way: it was enough to perform ONCE, make recording of it, and then sell recordings instead of performances. This model could work only when sharing of data was difficult. That model is going away, with or without crying loud or imposing (never quite working) copyright walls. It is really bad for films, for example, you cannot perform it live. But, cinemas and broadcasters are giving lots of money to film industry for broadcasting rights. They will only loose "DVD money". I think think they will survive just fine.

Re:New Rules (1)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791976)

Internet restored old rule: You can make money as an artist IF you are willing to perform your art in LIVE and there is audience willing to pay for it. There was brief window in history, like 100 years, where this rule was changed in a strange way: it was enough to perform ONCE, make recording of it, and then sell recordings instead of performances. This model could work only when sharing of data was difficult. That model is going away, with or without crying loud or imposing (never quite working) copyright walls. It is really bad for films, for example, you cannot perform it live. But, cinemas and broadcasters are giving lots of money to film industry for broadcasting rights. They will only loose "DVD money". I think think they will survive just fine.

I disagree that it's really bad for films as consumers are still very inclined to buy a DVD or Blu-ray even with options like Netflix and Red Box.

Re:New Rules (1)

RogerWilco (99615) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792184)

This might be the case for music, although I don't think it's as black&white as you paint it, but for video and games this is not the case.

Re:New Rules (1)

BetterSense (1398915) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792848)

Thinking more fundamentally, without government force, you can only sell people things that they want, and don't already have, and can't get from somewhere else cheaper. In other words, you have to offer something of value to convince people to give you money.

Government force is about the only way you can make money off something which is copied for \approx free, transported \approx free, durable, and storable. We all know that data is infinitely copyable and has a real cost of approximately zero. So, in the absence of government force, attempting to build a business around repeatedly selling something that can be copied infinitely is pretty stupid. This kind of thing used to be called a "bad business model" but the anti-piracy brainwashed literally see it as if the 'media companies' (which don't actually sell media anymore, but data) have some right to collect money from it. Record companies used to provide the real value of pressing rare physical records. Now that data is no longer tied to expensive physical media, there are two things the 'media companies' can do: find some way to once again provide people with some value which they will pay for, or get the government to help force them to pay for something which they would otherwise not.

buh? (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791726)

'One of the main reasons we all have anti-piracy slogans embedded in our brains is because the music industry chose to try and protect its existing market and revenue streams at all costs and marginalise and vilify those who didn't want to conform to the harsh new rules being set.'

Is there anyone out there who doesn't associate anti-piracy slogans with hilarity? Don't copy that floppy!

Just stop consuming (3, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791732)

Can't get the programme you want, the music you want, the film you want, the software you want? Can't get it in the right format, the right quality, without DRM?

Then DON'T buy it. Don't consume it. If the producers of Lost want to play those sorts of games (and they are hardly innocent here - they sign the deals that say who can distribute their product how), then stop watching the damn thing. The reason these companies continue is that people STILL buy that crap and still desire product from people that are crapping on them. Don't be one of them.

Personally, when something comes up like that, I not only don't BUY it, but I do everything in my power to stop requiring it too, including seeking out alternatives that are completely legal and legitimate.

I've witnessed businesses go from MS Office to LibreOffice for just that reason - you cannot get what you want, for a price you want to pay, and use it the way you want, so you go elsewhere even if it's an inconvenience. Some people would turn to piracy but as a business you can turn to other, more enticing, offers like free Office suites that have MOST or ALL of the functionality you require.

The problem I have with piracy is that most of it is unnecessary. There's possibly an argument that some third-world country can't afford first-world licensing and so pirates to make their businesses operate. But TV, DVD, Blu-Ray, iPod's, etc. are luxury items. They are NOT necessary. That's what gets my goat about piracy - you're only ripping off stuff that you don't actually NEED (like the people I've seen who download EVERY episode of EVERYTHING "just in case" they get around to watching it at some point, and then rarely watch 10% of the stuff they've downloaded).

If you NEED it, you'll do whatever you need to do.
If you only WANT it, then pay for it.
If you can't pay for it, but still want it, find something else to want.

Re:Just stop consuming (0)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791960)

I hope you realize no one is going to listen to your suggestion.

Re:Just stop consuming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37792440)

I already practice this behaviour, and it's been 10 years since. I couldn't be happier ^_^

Sorry, I'm posting AC coz this is public T_T

Re:Just stop consuming (1)

RogerWilco (99615) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792554)

If you can't pay for it, but still want it, find something else to want.

Sounds easy, but might be hard to do.

Nowadays communities often span the globe, but copyright is limited by borders. To watch or listen to the same things as your friends, copyright sometimes needs to be bent or broken. Unless you suggest you suggest that I should find new friends, only from my local area?

And even then, some of my friends have moved to the USA, Sweden, Portugal, India, Japan and New Zealand. Nowadays with Skype and such, it's easy to keep in touch. I don't think that limiting myself and the rest of my friends to the cross section of those things available in all those countries is really feasible unless we become hermits from popular culture.

Your solution might work if you have no friends, all of them are local, or you're shunting yourself from large parts of today's culture, but otherwise it's not a real option for a lot of us.

Copyright needs a way to become global in a way that the internet has. The only other solution will be a lot of Great Firewalls of China doing heavy handed DPI and disallowing encrypted traffic across borders. but I don't think the finance industry and banks would be happy about that.

Re:Just stop consuming (1)

poity (465672) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792588)

Asking /. to seek change from themselves rather than from others? Prepare for disappointment

(I share your sentiments, though)

Fansubs suck. (0)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791734)

The author makes the case that anime translations done professionally suck. Not true. Hasn't been true for nearly a decade. Not just that, fan subbing tends to be pretty bad. Leaving in honoriffics, just not translating some words, etc

While I think he makes a solid case elsewhere for piracy, this falls flat on its face.

I do think the uncertainty of western licensing is a much better reason. Even if I had the cash for region 2 Japanese DVDs or Japanese bluray, the business doesn't hold up either. Exported sales of such products really don't show up on sales figures on the business end and I'm not sure if I'm supporting the artist.

Re:Fansubs suck. (1)

taricorp (987706) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792400)

Not just that, fan subbing tends to be pretty bad. Leaving in honoriffics, just not translating some words, etc

This is precisely why I tend to prefer fansubs. Most professional translations are less precise because they need to target more casual viewers, who would be confused more often than not by untranslated idioms.
Compare to fansubs, which generally target an audience which is more savvy with the language, so leaving certain idioms untranslated allows the viewer to pick up on certain nuances which would otherwise be lost. It's a similar case for honorifics, since they can encode small amounts of additional information that might be otherwise lost or be harder to pick up on.

There's something to be said for going ahead and translating everything since the original language is still there in the audio track, but I think it makes more sense to put everything in the subtitle track, as it may be difficult to follow dialog in both audio and subtitles. Even then, style varies greatly between fansubbers. Some prefer to take the more accessible approach, while others tend to leave idioms untranslated.

Much to do about nothing (1)

wedontneednobadges (856106) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791800)

Most of the crap is not worth any money. That's why the less "piracy" anal film industry is doing better. I can't tell you how many times I have walked into a "hip" college kid establishment and heard the Stones. It's like kids these days don't listem to music from their own era.

Re:Much to do about nothing (2)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791882)

It's like kids these days don't listem to music from their own era.

Who can blame them?

The digital problem. (2)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791904)

Digital data is unique as it can be copied over and over again without loosing anything. It can be done for cheap and any individual can do it.

Old media Each copy degrades per copy. And making the media was expensive.

This is the problem.

Copyright law is based on the old media. So those large fines for violations were fair laws. Because if you were to say pirate 10,000 records, or 100,000 books at a near production quality. Then you have already have invested a substantial money to do this, with the idea of making more money from it. So if you get caught then you probably already have a lot of wealth acquired illegally.

Now that violating the law is much too easy, now the fines are hurting the "innocent" people who's crime is closer to sneaking into a movie theater without a ticket. Even if they have hundreds of thousands of illegal material, and shared it millions of time.

The root cause of the piracy like any black market activity is the fact there is demand for a product that is priced too high, or is treated in a way people do not want. Or they legally cannot get it otherwise. To lower piracy Media companies need to expand their internet usage of their media (That is what people want), Make it affordable (Now that you have greatly increased your supply capacities as you are sharing data not physical stuff), and make sure people who want it can get it.

Re:The digital problem. (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792096)

Digital data is unique as it can be copied over and over again...

=)

r$you FAIL it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37791938)

is the worst oof yes, I work for real problems that NetBSD user

Different market, lower prices (2, Interesting)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791954)

My parents had maybe 100-200 albums, and paid a certain percentage of their income for music.
I have 1000-2000 albums, but I certainly am not going to pay 10 times as much as my parents (if only because logically I listen to them 10 times less on average, and because I have only some Mb of harddisk space, rather than a fancy disk in a nice cover on a real shelf).

The music industry just have to get to grips that prices have to drop dramatically for people to stop downloading. I cannot afford to buy music now.

Re:Different market, lower prices (0, Troll)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792622)

My parents had 2 cars. I want 20, but i don't want 10x my parents' car budget. Why isn't the automotive industry listening to me?

What about the creators? (1, Interesting)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#37791992)

OK, so if we accept that corporations/publishers are evil and worthless, the MPAA and RIAA are worse than worthless, and they don't deserve the benefits of copyright..... what about individual creators? As someone who has developed software, written stories, and created art, all as an independent creator, why should I be expected to relinquish all my work to the Pirate Domain? Why should I have to depend entirely on a day job to support myself, while everything I manage to create in the rest of my waking hours must be "shared" with everyone with no compensation? Wouldn't it better support the creation of new works if it were possible for someone like me to actually make a living from it?

Re:What about the creators? (3, Interesting)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792442)

It's hard to argue with supply and demand. Once created, the supply of your work is infinite, it is effectively 0 cost to make another copy. Having an unlimited supply is going to drive prices down to near zero as a matter of course. Rather than asking 'why' you shouldn't be paid, you should be asking 'how'.

You can try to artificially restrict your supply with DRM but that pisses off your customers. You can try to litigate, in which case you aren't really selling your works, you're selling a no sue guarantee, and also pisses off your customers (especially since if you sue enough people you will eventually catch an innocent person in your net).

Or you can accept that some X% of your users are going to pirate, and you can charge the rest enough to make your money. Some anecdotal evidence even suggests that properly managed piracy can increase sales, so actively go out and use the pirates as a free advertising agency. More radically, you can put your old works out in public domain, and make a preorder for your next work available, basically a modern day, crowd sourced patronage model. I can think of at least one author who has managed that effectively (Charles Stross). Or you can publish your works to your blog and get some extra money from advertising. Or, if your product is software, you can give it away for individuals but require payment from businesses (who are less likely to pirate given the higher risks they face).

Re:What about the creators? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37792540)

Your creations are largely worthless, despite what you, the creator might think of them. If there's no market for your output, why should you expect to make a living from it?

I'm not saying your works are garbage, but simply no one wants them. Lack of exposure may be the only reason. It doesn't matter.

This goes for all hobbies.

Copyright gives you protection, before it existed, anyone could copy anything else from anyone at any time.

Re:What about the creators? (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792868)

+1. Your innovation, your profit. That's entirely fair. I'm all for stopping corporate abuse of individual rights, but we need to remember creators are individuals too.

So who pays? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37792064)

Film, TV, and music studios have costs associated with them. Bands can get money from live performances, but it's hard to see what an alternate revenue stream is for a TV show. I'm going to use Kantian ethics here, but if everyone in the world was to pirate a television production, then the product doesn't gain any revenue to continue making the production. All the supposed benefits of piracy come from the assumption that someone else is willing to support the product, so that you don't have to.

The fundamental question (1)

Tony Isaac (1301187) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792118)

The fundamental question is, do authors and artists "own" their works? Do they have a right to control what they have created?

Sure, the "system" is stilted and unfair. But try buying a car. Do you think the dealer is going to give you a fair deal? NO WAY! They are going to use every trick and lie in the book to relieve you of as much money as they can, while making you think you're the winner. But just because the dealer is crooked, doesn't give you the right to steal one of their cars.

Publishers are equally crooked. They try to keep as much money as they can for themselves, depriving authors of what is rightfully theirs. But that does not give people a right to steal the copyrighted works.

So, if there is indeed a such thing as intellectual property (as every civilized nation recognizes), the "case" for piracy is just an excuse for theft.

Confused about who the customer is (4, Insightful)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792140)

Contempt for customers

He then goes on to demonstrate several instances of where the local TV stations screwed the audience.

You are not TV's customers. You are the product being sold to the advertisers.

One Time Warner exec when so far as to say that people who TiVo shows and fast forward through the commercials are thieves. (As well as people who switch channels, or use the euphemism during a break)

If TV exec's could Ludovico you, they would.

Taken out of context (1, Interesting)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792174)

I'm an english major, though I'm also a computer scientist. My preference is to speak as simply, rapidly and directly as possible. I find that there are often misunderstandings where people should have been able to make inferences but were distracted or under a false impression initially.

I think everyone has things in their life that if taken out of context could be interpreted poorly. Friendships with people who became troubled. Comments that could be taken out of context. Teenage angst that if applied to an adult might indicate extreme sentiments.

The deaths caused by unibombers, Bin Laden's, serial killers, etc. Are really a tiny tiny fraction of deaths. Further these acts tend to be caused (at least from the perspective of the perpetrators) by mistrust from society and the victims. Adding the level of security that the U.S. intelligence agencies seem to be so keen on will vastly increase the amount of paranoia, social distance and hostility in that type of mind.

By looking at possible causal factors you drive practitioners of victim-less but socially frowned upon activities underground, where they will form groups united by their distrust of society and authority.

It is unclear whether these government agencies would act to prevent true subversion (such as bitcoins or revolution) but they certainly seem to be used for things like Watergate, monitoring peaceful protests and tracking down people who borrow subversive materials from the library far more than they are used to detect real threats.

The Jury system where you are innocent until proven guilty has given westerners a level of trust in authority not seen before in the world (minus certain minorities who may or may not be justified in their distrust). The current action of intelligence services completely undermines that. It will have consequences.

I'm still in my late twenties but I've found that no one thinks they are a bad person. Many violent or seemingly vindictive acts are thought of as retaliation. Asymmetric warfare is a real thing, and giving motivational ammunition to groups like Anonymous, gangs or "Fight Club"s would seem to be building pressure in a vessel.

If the president (Obama) can't pass the legislation he wanted to enact (removing the troops) because of interference from the administrative elements of security councils then the will of the people is already being subverted.

Eventually someone will stop the rat race for success with a goodly amount of resources and decide that blowing up say, Langley, Microsoft, T-Mobile or New York is the most meaningful accomplishment they can leave behind.

I hope the think tanks at Darpa and RAND to consider the implications of a world with $20 remote control airplanes, 3D printers, open source software, global communications combined with a selfish governing body.

Louis the XIV had spies everywhere, didn't help much.

A guillotine is still a simple thing to make and being middle class is the safest place to be.

I've tasted blow fish, it's delicious, but if I hadn't I really would have missed nothing. If we move towards removing copyright, patents, etc. People will be happily driving around in well made cars, eating food that's delicious and cheap and not willing to commit horrific crimes. If you make poverty a crime... well Liberty, Equality and Brotherhood might come again.

The Case for Monopolies (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792204)

The constitutional rationale for "exclusive rights" is to encourage the arts and sciences. This is probably unnecessary - both existed before so-called intellectual property protections did.

The whole idea of claiming responsibility for a creation is shaky; good creators copy, great creators steal. When 'IP" protections kick in after the creator has climbed onto the shoulders of prior giants, it seems inherently unfair.

Practically speaking, as to science, there's enough of a money motive for new technology that patents can and do help push the envelope along.

But painting, storytelling, singing don't necessarily advance just because you forbid anybody else to copy the work. Artists who choose their field for the money are probably going to be disappointed, but if they do make it, it's often more about marketing than merit.

And it's the marketeers who often reap most of the reward. Getting paid for their marketing work is fine, but then the monopoly protection is helping the marketeers, not artists in general or edgy art in particular.

So my "case for piracy" is that there's no strong case for monopoly, and "piracy" is what the artists themselves do and have done for millenia.

Ah, it's the ABC (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792256)

I'm a bit of a fan of ABC. For a government-funded institution, they're surprisingly willing to present unpopular opinions. As someone who is a firm supporter of copyright and decrier of piracy, I do still applaud the issue being brought out into the open like this, on mainstream media. This issue must be talked about, because marginalising it does no favours for either side. May the best logic win!

Somewhat agree (1)

HideyoshiJP (1392619) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792294)

I can agree that media corporations have become increasingly hostile to the consumer. They won't be satisfied until they've got advertisements on the back of your eyelids that they'll charge you for. I don't, however, feel that I'm entitled to pirate things. Have I in the past? Sure. Will I again? Maybe. I try not to pirate so much anymore, and I generally purchase the pirated content I really like. I feel there's a better option, though. Despite missteps, I feel that Netflix and other subscription services are the best way to flip the bird at content owners. Are they getting money from it? Sure, but they're losing something more important to them: control of distribution channels. I'm being optimistic, but I hope that this will make things more competitive, and ultimately more consumer-friendly. The only downside to this is that it does nothing to fix the bass-ackward copyright laws that seem to extend by twenty years every ten or so.

DRM and Walled Gardens (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37792318)

I actually bought music on itunes. I went to play it on my car mp3 player and had to convert it. Of course there was a company that would charge me $20 for a program to convert it. So I gave up and found the song on bit torrent. Then came the day when I got married and the wife and I tried to combine our music collections. Itunes would let me put her songs on my phone, but wouldn't let me play them. So I gave up and got the files via torrent. Then came the day my PC died and I tried to redownload the songs from itunes. Itunes said I already owned them and wouldn't let me download them or buy them again. So I gave up and went to torrents.

I have tried to pay for music and gotten screwed so many ways. In the end, the solution was simply to go to the torrents. Like Pavlov's dog, I have learned through repitition where to get my music. Shame on them for turning off a paying customer. I tried. I'm done trying.

Wasn't there another story... (2)

sohmc (595388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37792762)

...that summarized that the reason MPAA and RIAA get their panties in a bunch is because they no longer control the market? They've always controlled distribution, sales, etc. Now, artists have less and less of a need to have a publisher since they can publish directly to itunes, amazon, etc. leaving the companies in the analog dust.

My issue with legit copies is that there is sometimes so much protection and so much annoyances (e.g. FORCING me to watch an ad on a DVD) that it's almost easier and more convenient to pirate.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>