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!

Research Shows "Three Strikes" Anti-piracy Laws Don't Work

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the who'd-thunk-it dept.

Piracy 133

Bismillah writes "Graduated response regimes that warn and then penalize users for infringing file sharing do not appear to work, new research from Monash University in Australia has found. The paper studied 'three strikes' laws (abstract, freely downloadable as a PDF from there) in France, New Zealand, South Korea, Taiwan and the UK, as well as other anti-filesharing regimes in the U.S. and Ireland, but found scant evidence that they're effective."

cancel ×

133 comments

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

Update (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804573)

I just wanted everyone to know that I am enjoying some energetic coitus in front of my living-room window RIGHT NOW.

Re:Update (3, Funny)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year ago | (#44804955)

I just wanted everyone to know that I am enjoying some energetic coitus in front of my living-room window RIGHT NOW.

We already know that.

-- The NSA

Re: Update (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805225)

... and we put a camera in the dick inside your ass, we need to tell you that you have a TDS deep inside.
--- The NSA

Re:Update (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44806093)

I just wanted everyone to know that I am enjoying some energetic coitus in front of my living-room window RIGHT NOW.

No you don't. You haven't had sex since 2010-04-21T23:32:23-0900 when you got pity sex from that drunk chick. -- The NSA

Three Strikes Laws (5, Insightful)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | about a year ago | (#44804577)

Probably the worst idea ever.

Do they prevent any sort of crime?

I've heard of pot smoking vets getting locked up for 10+ years under such stupid laws for nothing more than possession.

Did people (more specifically, politicians) really think they'd work or were reasonable for copyright infringement?

Re:Three Strikes Laws (5, Interesting)

ATMAvatar (648864) | about a year ago | (#44804653)

It goes further than that. Even without the three-strikes laws, no one takes copyright law very seriously, for several reasons:

Re:Three Strikes Laws (4, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44804727)

The chance of getting caught pirating anything is statistically insignificant.

Well, that's why they're going for automated systems, alerts, etc., crammed down the ISPs throats with the promise of reducing business costs by lowering the amount of bandwidth. Comcast, Time Warner, etc., in the US fell in line, and their counterparts in Europe are doing the same. They can only prosecute a tiny fraction; Which is why they have to rely on fear. If you're caught, $100,000 fines, years in prison, etc. -- overkill so massive it'll scare the population into quitting.

Unfortunately for them, this tactic isn't working very well. And the technology is not really effective either. For example, I regularly download the newest movies, which are well-known to be the most watched and hit by automated systems. The only thing I've done to defeat this... is to enable encryption.

There will always be a way around it. They'll keep upping the odds. Soon it'll be one strike. Then it'll be no strike. Then it'll be just talking about piracy.

Re:Three Strikes Laws (1)

kesuki (321456) | about a year ago | (#44804901)

good points, but just because you're downloading does not mean you're not being monitored. all the metadata from every phone call since the mid 80s is being stored by at&t. with all their fancy tools most of the dmca shutdowns are used to disconnect legitimate but vocal people, who only tried to share their information, and they got falsely identified. not to mention there are laws in the usa that supposedly protect us citizens from digital wiretapping, without a court even if it's kinda a bad court that will do almost anything about terrorists. but sharing movies is too easy and too wide spread to defeat it. so they target large piracy collectives with multi disc rapid replication hives. and the dmca can't keep up with it's low street cred from using it to silence people instead of outing pirates. besides the internet is about sharing if netflix and it's many clones offer a deal most people can say, hey this is easier than pirating... but i still see people paying to rent movies. netflix intentionally doesn't carry the new to dvd/bluray market except in it's physical by postal mail system. even then people still use redbox and blockbuster video kiosk at least in most places i have been to. theaters are getting hit hard. i went to a movie with some friends once at their advice and all 4 of us were the only ones in the movie on a Saturday night. people know now they can wait and see stuff later on dvd/bluray and don't even have to own them to see it. since the switch to digital i know a few people who have said 'no' to cable tv and use hdtv ota and just order internet for streaming and use mobile phones for calling people. it is cheaper by far even than 'cheap' cable bundles.
three strike laws are going away silently as they've found that inmates cost more to care for than in the past. they are ramping up on terrorists for now that is what they are doing. although i do realize that inmates can be paid tiny amounts of cash for working in factories, in fact until the lawsuits hit (if lead doesn't get banned) i know a womens prison that desolders recycled parts for recovering the valuable parts while the cheap parts are shipped to landfills. so feel free to be paranoid about people being arrested and working below wage just like they do in china where the only crime was being poor.

Re:Three Strikes Laws (0)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year ago | (#44804843)

There shouldn't be ANY Constitutional legalisation of any type of a monopoly or special privilege handed out by any level of government to anybody under any circumstances, copyrights and patents are not special, individuals cannot be punished by governments for breaking copyrights or patents, it should be left out of government completely and up to the free market solutions for any of it if there has to be a 'solution' at all.

All that these government powers have done is create a privileged class of people who enjoy protections not granted to others and also it took freedoms away from the rest. This is yet another violation of principles of equality before law and leads to destruction of any justice.

Re:Three Strikes Laws (4, Insightful)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year ago | (#44805511)

Let's worry about following the Constitution as it is, first. Then we can talk about your fantasy version.

Re:Three Strikes Laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804947)

Or simply put, "do as I say, not as I do."

Re:Three Strikes Laws (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804661)

Of course. It works in baseball.

And if you don't like baseball, you are a commie pinko.

USA USA USA USA

Re:Three Strikes Laws (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#44805083)

Now if the copyright holders could manage to get within an order of magnitude of a baseball umpire's ball and strike call accuracy.

Re:Three Strikes Laws (2)

shentino (1139071) | about a year ago | (#44805541)

You might be onto something.

Umpires are sent to umpire school, no matter what kind of prior experience they have, in the words of the school to "break bad habits"

Then they are sent to the minor leagues and get trained with experience and then drafted for positions into the majors.

Now, if copyright holders were given similiar training to earn the privilege of holding a corporate copyright it would help too wouldn't it?

Re:Three Strikes Laws (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#44805973)

The sad thing is that law school is supposed to take care of that. It looks like the law schools could learn a lot from the umpire schools. Perhaps a bit longer in the minor leagues for the lawyers would help.

Re:Three Strikes Laws (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year ago | (#44805517)

What if you're a Communist who also likes baseball?

Re:Three Strikes Laws (2)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year ago | (#44806487)

What if you're a Communist who also likes baseball?

Then you're Cuban?

Re:Three Strikes Laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805735)

One think I've noticed: under the skin, everybody is pink.

-- Dexter.

Re:Three Strikes Laws (2)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year ago | (#44806479)

Remember though, even in baseball 3 strikes doesn't always get you out (dropped third strike). There's always a loophole.

Re:Three Strikes Laws (3, Insightful)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about a year ago | (#44804725)

It does work in a way, It just educates people on ways to AVOID getting busted.

I call BS on this ridiculous "study" (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804769)

I downloaded the PDF and actually read some of it. It is not a statistical-based "study". It is an advocacy piece studded with high-falutin legalese to make it sound more weighty.

It was written by a lawyer who opposed the anti-piracy laws from the get go, and wrote a briefing to advocate her case in the typical adverserial fashion. Here's an example: to demonstrate that the "three strikes" law didn't work in France, the author notes that while millions of first infringement notices had been sent out by copyright holders, very few third infringement notices were sent, and even the number of first infringement notices had declined sharply after three years. The author implies that these facts convincingly demonstrate that the law was a failure! I'm glad she pointed that out, because naively I might have looked at those facts as evidence that the law was a big success!

But then, I'm not a "Senior Visiting Scholar, U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 2013; Faculty member, Monash University Law School; member, Monash Commercial Law Group. It took a global village to help raise this paper." (end quote) Wow. Excuse me.

Think about any controversial issue with economic implications - immigration reform, climate change, the Keystone pipeline, educational subsidies, health care reform. Anybody with a college degree and a lot of time on their hands could assemble a "study" as convincing as this one that would confirm the correctness of their opinion while trashing the other side. That's what this one is.

Re:I call BS on this ridiculous "study" (2)

geminidomino (614729) | about a year ago | (#44805167)

I'm glad she pointed that out, because naively I might have looked at those facts as evidence that the law was a big success!

That would be naive because, for your logic -- rather than hers -- to hold would require the industry to admit a decline in piracy.

Wait, but they're claiming it's increasing. So either they're lying about needing the laws, or they're lying about...uh... needing the laws.

Re:I call BS on this ridiculous "study" (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about a year ago | (#44806541)

To be fair, your point doesn't at all address his. He's arguing her report shows the opposite conclusion as she says it does. Your argument is someone else entirely is lying.

Re:I call BS on this ridiculous "study" (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about a year ago | (#44806633)

Except that it does address his.

In order for *his* conclusion to hold true, it requires that the number of notifications to go down with a corresponding decrease in piracy rate. If the piracy rate has not decreased, then his conclusion is in error, as it only means a lower percentage of offenders are receiving notifications. The only source we have for piracy numbers says that it's still increasing, in spite of 3-strikes laws.

So, based on available information, his conclusion is inconsistent with the data, while the paper's is consistent.

Re:I call BS on this ridiculous "study" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805725)

Yeah, but you were more than happy to download the PDF - without checking all copyright on it I bet - Q.E.D.

Re:Three Strikes Laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805051)

Do they prevent any sort of crime?

Without laws to label things as a criminal act, there is no crime. Therefore no law ever has or ever qill prevent crime. Laws can not protect, they can only be a part of a means to punish.

"SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher." -- Thomas Paine, Common Sense

Re:Three Strikes Laws (-1, Offtopic)

abbiege (3057431) | about a year ago | (#44806269)

uptil I saw the check of $5451, I accept that my mother in law was like realy erning money part time on their laptop.. there dads buddy started doing this less than fourteen months and by now cleared the depts on there cottage and purchased a new Saab 99 Turbo. .........>www.jobs60.com

Interesting data (4, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44804709)

There is some interesting data in the paper. It lists convictions in various countries.

France: 2million strike ones, 200,000 strike twos, and 710 strike threes, of which only 4 actually went to trial (only one had internet suspended, and only for 15 days).
New Zealand: A lot of data is missing, but so far there have been 13 final cases (with fines of $100NZ per song, maxing out at $600).
South Korea: 500,000 notices issued, of which 99% resulted in suspension of some kind of service (not internet service, but other services such as file hosting accounts).
Taiwan: No enforcement seems to have happened at all.
United Kingdom: Still not in effect, coming soon.
Ireland: 100 customers lost access for a week (cut off by a private agreement with an ISP, not the law), and 4 are close to getting it cut off completely.
United States: (once again, from private agreements with ISPs, not the law) no public data is available.

Re:Interesting data (0)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44804851)

South Korea: 500,000 notices issued, of which 99% resulted in suspension of some kind of service (not internet service, but other services...

Electricity?

Re:Interesting data (2)

Pinhedd (1661735) | about a year ago | (#44806155)

MMO accounts? Battle.net?

That's... the worst thing that could possibly happen in South Korea

Re:Interesting data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805107)

Taiwan: No enforcement seems to have happened at all. best place in the world to live apparently. Cause its cheaper to bribe the local officials then pay out to holy wood.

captcha : Bundles lol

Re:Interesting data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805575)

Perhaps people just go better at avoiding getting caught?

If I got a strike 1 notice, the first thing I would do would be sign up for an anonymiser service.

There would be no strike 2 or 3.

Unless they sent me them all at once. Can they do that?

lol. "it reduced piracy, but we'll ignore that" (2)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year ago | (#44804711)

TLA says:
  "suggests some ongoing shift in user behavior, and likely some net reduction in infringement," Giblin said. However, the research noted that [when everyone e found out the NSA was watching their traffic] encrypted HTTPS increased.

They are assuming that all / most https traffic is piracy. Much more likely, as sites like Google start using https more, and people find out the NSA is watching, people have been using https for routine web traffic.

You can legitimately say that you don't like copyright. Fine. You could almost make a coherent argument that programmers, record producers, and videographers should all work two jobs, one to eat and one (for free) to give you free shit. Kinda silly, but that's at least cogent. When you start saying "it doesn't reduce infringement, and here's the evidence - our study shows that it does, but we wish it didn't, therefore it doesn't" - at that point you've just gone off the deep end and are making yourself look like a complete nutjob.

Re:lol. "it reduced piracy, but we'll ignore that" (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44804717)

However, the research noted that [when everyone e found out the NSA was watching their traffic] encrypted HTTPS increased.

Has anyone started using HTTPS more because of the NSA? I haven't, in most of my own personal use cases it wouldn't help anyway, because the other side is likely compromised.

Re:lol. "it reduced piracy, but we'll ignore that" (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about a year ago | (#44804837)

Has anyone started using HTTPS more because of the NSA?

Not me. I have always used HTTPS/TLS/encrypted whatnot anywhere it has been possible -- incoming e-mail, outgoing e-mail, Web, chat, P2P and so on -- and I've had HTTPS Everywhere - addon installed on Firefox for a long time now. What the whole NSA-debacle made me do, however, is be even more careful with that stuff and it finally pushed me to running my own cloud storage-,XMPP-, CardDav-, CalDav- and so on server and to stop syncing my contacts or calendar and to stop sending the backup of my Android-settings to Google. Should've stopped doing that earlier already, but I never got around it before. Oh, and it also made me totally avoid Skype, most Microsoft-products and any US-based shells, cloud storage systems and such.

I haven't, in most of my own personal use cases it wouldn't help anyway, because the other side is likely compromised.

That's why I run my own servers :)

Re:lol. "it reduced piracy, but we'll ignore that" (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44804871)

You have Google plus. What's the point of all that security?

Re:lol. "it reduced piracy, but we'll ignore that" (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about a year ago | (#44805877)

You have Google plus. What's the point of all that security?

What do you mean? Are you aware that I can, you know, choose myself what I place there? I only write stuff there and I've got a profile there, I don't upload my files there, I don't chat via it and so on. The stuff there is stuff that I have deliberately chosen to make public. As such I don't understand your point.

Re:lol. "it reduced piracy, but we'll ignore that" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804719)

I don't even see the evidence that it did reduce infringement (not that such draconian laws would be okay if they did work, but still...). How could they possibly know such a thing?

slower internet if you KEEP stealing. Draco? (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year ago | (#44806547)

Look up Draco sometime. You just said that slower internet for the third offense is the same as the death penalty on the first offence. Or did you mean that having your internet service turned off for a few months is equalivent to having your eye removed?

You could, you know, stop stealing after you get caught twice.

Re:lol. "it reduced piracy, but we'll ignore that" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804797)

Yeah, you need to re-read that, champ. They're talking about a different study that showed a dip in piracy, but they note that even that study did not attribute any of the observed change to the graduated response component of the new law, which is what this paper is about. There may be a net reduction in infringement, but there's no evidence that any of that is due to the graduated response.

Re:lol. "it reduced piracy, but we'll ignore that" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805069)

Mod troll. This is not supported by anything but the OP's opinion, which suggests he's a shill. /. needs a shill moderation option, btw. We're getting a lot of them here lately.

Re:lol. "it reduced piracy, but we'll ignore that" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805123)

They don't get payed by the big media companies, they get ripped off. they work two jobs, and we are getting a fucked society as a result of a few execs getting payed out big time for the work of a few....

yes, content creators should get payed, but either once, or a small honest royalty from us. and the public domain should be strictly enforced and protected. with a short duration on copywright, and no 're-addition' of derrivative works (see multiple versions of movies via disney in regard: Pirates of the Carrabean, Book, Movie, Movie, derivative, back under "copywright" years)...

Shits fucked, don't pretend like your a fucking hero trying to save starving artists. The artists that pay no head to copywright and work for commissions are doing better then the ones fucked in the ass by multimedia conglomerates.

Re:lol. "it reduced piracy, but we'll ignore that" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805269)

The increase in HTTPS as noted in the study was from the Waikato traffic analysis which occurred at least a year before the Snowden revelations.

Re:lol. "it reduced piracy, but we'll ignore that" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805439)

Umm, the paper says that even the guys who did the study suggesting reduced infringement in NZ don't claim causation, only correlation. So...she's a nutjob for not claiming the study does more than its own authors claim?

Re:lol. "it reduced piracy, but we'll ignore that" (2)

yoshi_mon (172895) | about a year ago | (#44805561)

You can legitimately say that you don't like copyright. Fine. You could almost make a coherent argument that programmers, record producers, and videographers should all work two jobs, one to eat and one (for free) to give you free shit. Kinda silly, but that's at least cogent. When you start saying "it doesn't reduce infringement, and here's the evidence - our study shows that it does, but we wish it didn't, therefore it doesn't" - at that point you've just gone off the deep end and are making yourself look like a complete nutjob.

We don't like copyright in its current form. That is different than saying we don't like copyright at all.

Re:lol. "it reduced piracy, but we'll ignore that" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44806263)

Speak for yourself. I don't like copyright at all, in any form, current or otherwise. I'm not alone in this.

Correlation does not equal causation! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804715)

Oh wait that only applies to studies we disagree with. Carry on!

research also shows that... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804723)

jews are greedy. news at 11.

You know what curbs piracy? (5, Insightful)

klingers48 (968406) | about a year ago | (#44804731)

Affordability.

Availability.

Transferability.

Convenience.

This is what curbs piracy. You're not going to stop broke fourteen year-olds from downloading movies with hollow rhetoric and invented damages. However, you can quite easily get a family of four on a modest income to pay $10 a month for Netflix. Why this makes Hollywood brains explode I'll never know.

Re:You know what curbs piracy? (4, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | about a year ago | (#44804853)

However, you can quite easily get a family of four on a modest income to pay $10 a month for Netflix. Why this makes Hollywood brains explode I'll never know.

Hollywood brains explode because they cannot understand why you would give away so much content for so little! I mean, movies for a whole month for $10? Are you crazy!?! They sell a single DVD for like three times that! Lets say two movies are watched per night, that's a rate of $1,800 per month for goodness sake, not this measly $10...

Re:You know what curbs piracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804981)

Then again, they don't have to pay for the DVD/Blu Ray, the boxes, every printed materials, the company in charge of "burning" those DVDs/blu Ray, etc...
And let's face it, not everyone will go and watch ALL the movies on Netflix. I'd say in the first month or two, quite a few movies and tv series, but after that, should trickle down by a lot.
Also, the Netflix selection if you live outside of the US is extremely poor.

Re:You know what curbs piracy? (1)

shentino (1139071) | about a year ago | (#44805551)

Netflix is a reseller of sorts, and you bet your bottom dollar they are paying licensing fees to the producers that allow them to commercially show them to the end user, and those fees are likely being based on viewership. Part of Netflix DRM probably includes information gathering for Netflix's beancounters.

Hollywood is definitely getting its cut already.

Re:You know what curbs piracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804867)

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. You just won the entire copyright argument from now until the end of time. Congratulations. Say, you wouldn't happen to control a band of uniformed men with guns who are willing to submit your fellows to the pain of law?

Re:You know what curbs piracy? (5, Informative)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year ago | (#44804933)

Why this makes Hollywood brains explode I'll never know.

Over the past 30 years, the sale and rental of content on video cassettes has generated somewhere in the neighborhood of $150-200 Billion. And yet the MPAA took a lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court trying to outlaw the VCR.

These are the geniuses you're dealing with.

Re:You know what curbs piracy? (3, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | about a year ago | (#44805555)

They would rather burn the cake than share it.

Re:You know what curbs piracy? (0)

Oligonicella (659917) | about a year ago | (#44806579)

Considering that point and that point alone, so would I. Those wanting to "share" your cake invariably bring not one damned thing to the table. *All* they want to do is share *your* cake.

Pray tell, is there a coherent argument as to why I must 'share' my cake instead of enjoying it myself?

Re:You know what curbs piracy? (1)

Kielistic (1273232) | about a year ago | (#44807371)

Pray tell, is there a coherent argument as to why I must 'share' my cake instead of enjoying it myself?

Because you are putting it on the market? You are perfectly free to keep it to yourself and never show anyone. Unfortunately it's pretty hard to make money that way.

Re:You know what curbs piracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805079)

Indeed. I don't usually pirate anything, but I've been watching "Under the Dome" and missed half of tonight's episode because CBS decided to delay it by half an hour and, for some reason, networks are still under the impression that people set their alarm clock for the time a show is scheduled for so that they can tune in and watch, and so it's OK to delay it half an hour so that they can finish some rerun of some dumbass sitcom they've likely showed a dozen times already. Of course, we won't see a rerun of this episode of "Under the Dome" for at least a year, if they ever re-run it at all, so it makes perfect sense to delay it.

So I decided maybe it was time to start pirating. Then I soon realized I don't actually know how to do it, but I did find a torrent file somewhere, but then I couldn't figure out how to set my bittorrent client into "leach" mode, and so I decided to hell with it. Instead I just watched the half of it I had and read about the rest in the summary on Wikipedia.

Next time they decide to start a new mini-series, though, I don't know that I'll bother to watch knowing that they'll eventually find some dumbass reason to delay an episode just to try to drive up the sales of the $3 a piece episodes. It kind of ruined my whole night, and I don't watch T.V. so that it can piss me off.

Anyway, I'm going to go get drunk now.

Re:You know what curbs piracy? (1)

Gavin Rogers (301715) | about a year ago | (#44805125)

However, you can quite easily get a family of four on a modest income to pay $10 a month for Netflix.

Which is a good idea, but it assumes that you live in a country that has access to Netflix or an equivalent service. Most of us living outside of the US don't.

For the rest of us, there's the local cable TV monopoly (who abuse that monopoly [delimiter.com.au] to stop legal download services competing with them) ... or Bittorrent.

Re:You know what curbs piracy? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year ago | (#44805197)

Affordability.

Availability.

Transferability.

Convenience.

This is what curbs piracy. You're not going to stop broke fourteen year-olds from downloading movies with hollow rhetoric and invented damages. However, you can quite easily get a family of four on a modest income to pay $10 a month for Netflix. Why this makes Hollywood brains explode I'll never know.

You only need one example - iTunes. Apple did "the impossible" by competing for free. Back in the days of Napster and filesharing, Apple managed to open a store and be damn successful at selling music for 99 cents each. Sure you can pirate the same music for free, but for most people, it was just easier to go to iTunes and click Buy.

For the rest of us, there's the local cable TV monopoly (who abuse that monopoly [delimiter.com.au] to stop legal download services competing with them) ... or Bittorrent.

Yeah, that's definitely a bummer, considering Apple is one of the few companies actually trying hard to sell movies and TV shows legally. Of course, scoring Game of Thrones on iTunes saves you having to buy Foxtel and it's available quickly.

It's interesting to note that Apple is probably the only content distributor that operates in a number of countries. Given the need to negotiate individual rights for everything (music, movies, TV shows) in every country individually, it makes Apple probably the largest global vendor, or at least one that operates in the most countries. The only bigger ones are ones who move physical media around - i.e., Amazon.

Re:You know what curbs piracy? (0)

Badooleoo (3045733) | about a year ago | (#44805853)

way to go apple fanfag

Re:You know what curbs piracy? (1)

inasity_rules (1110095) | about a year ago | (#44805983)

Except he is not wrong. The only digital content distributers we have in South Africa are iTunes and steam. I do not use iTunes myself, since I found apple to be excessively annoying and their selection to be insanely limited. Steam on the other hand has all but halted my desire to download games from torrents.

piracy doesn't need curbing (4, Insightful)

bzipitidoo (647217) | about a year ago | (#44805723)

The point that hasn't been mentioned yet is that copying and sharing are good. Everyone is talking like piracy is some kind of unsolvable problem, and morally wrong, when it isn't a problem or wrong at all. The problem is these rent seeking, anti-social businesses that want to keep our natural rights from us, and which unfortunately, and despite their heavy handed campaigning against piracy, still have most of the public convinced that copying is very naughty. It's all too easy to frame copying as loss-- we seem to be wired to think that way-- and play on the basic human emotion of fear of loss.

Copyright is not holy, and not the one and only way that artists can make a living. Copyright is only a means to pay for work, and a very poor and problem riddled means at that. There are many other ways. Tell a typical author that copyright should be abolished, and most of them will instantly, and with great histrionics, accuse you of wanting a free ride, of wanting to steal, and of wanting to destroy the publication business and authors' means of earning a living. None of that is true, but their knee jerk reaction is to make those unwarranted connections. Point out that there are other ways, such as patronage, and they will refuse to believe any could work. The first thing they think of patronage is that only rich people can be patrons. Guess they've never heard of Kickstarter and indiegogo, to name just two. When I mention that, they make further objections. Those can only work for established names, they say, as if it isn't possible to tweak that model so it would work for anyone, if that is, it doesn't already. The one genre in which I find this attitude particularly inexcusable is Science Fiction. I find it so ridiculous whenever some futuristic society is portrayed as still using intellectual property law. A classic example of this is in the Star Trek episode "I, Mudd" [youtube.com]

Re:piracy doesn't need curbing (0)

Oligonicella (659917) | about a year ago | (#44806625)

"Tell a typical author that copyright should be abolished, and most of them will instantly, and with great histrionics, accuse you of wanting a free ride..."

That would be because they are correct. You ALWAYS have the option of not purchasing something with a copyright attached. Instead, you argue that you should have free access and the author should find some means of support ***other than you***.

Lot of words, same shallow message - I don't want to pay for my entertainment.

Re:piracy doesn't need curbing (1)

neverwhere9 (2597405) | about a year ago | (#44807449)

I don't know. I'm absolutely broke most the time, so I really like the "pay what you want" model, like Amanda Palmer uses. To use her as an example, I got her album free when I couldn't afford it--she said to take it. And it balanced out, because people pay what they can afford. When I got money, I bought the album for the few dollars I had. This method probably wouldn't work as well for new artists, but it's worth thinking about. Kickstarter is great for all sorts of artists. I fully believe in supporting artists (I'm writing a novel I would like to be paid for one day) but I think there's other ways to do it than the traditional way.

Re:piracy doesn't need curbing (1)

Kielistic (1273232) | about a year ago | (#44807501)

Lot of words, same shallow message - I don't want to pay for my entertainment.

You are projecting. You ignore all evidence that doesn't support your bias. You know that the largest pirates also spend the most on media but they must just want a free ride right?

The message is simple. You cannot stop piracy. Most people watch / encounter more media than they could possibly afford to pay "market" rates for. Yet the industry makes money with absolutely no problem. Even with their terrible services. Therefore most of us thinking adults have concluded that it is not a world shattering problem. There is no justification for all of these huge efforts / wastes of money blocking people from doing many legitimate things under the excuse of fixing a problem that doesn't exist.

Re:piracy doesn't need curbing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44806833)

"rent seeking"

lmao. I agree, they're all cock suckers.

but we're talking about entertainment.

I don't even have a TV.

and while I don't think the tax payers should have to foot the bill for all these corporations to suck up judicial and law enforcement resources, at the same time, the consumption of entertainment is voluntary.

buy a banjo, a sharp knife, and find a piece of wood.

you can pluck a few tunes, and whittle.

now shut the fuck up.

Re:piracy doesn't need curbing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44807039)

The Exception that proves the rule is Baen. Every time they release a book for free, sales go up. While I don't think they've compiled a new one for a while, their hardbacks came with a CD with a whole ton of complete, DRM free ebooks on them. And the CD license explicitly states that you can share the CD and it;s contents in any way you want as long as you don't charge for it.

And it works. there are plenty of baen-published books on my shelf (and ebooks on various devices) that i'd never have paid for, and probably never even have heard of, if I did not encounter them for free somewhere. And the 'free sharing' license meant that anywhere I did encounter them invariably linked back to somewhere I could purchase them.

Parser error. Cannot enforce. (5, Insightful)

RyanFenton (230700) | about a year ago | (#44804737)

You can't enforce strict copyright. I'm saying this as someone who has worked on a lot of commercial software and games, even written copy protection systems of various kinds.

Public: Police services would charge the public far too much for any meaningful enforcement to make it practical - and we're already spending far more than any other nation on rule enforcement systems. It would either be far too spotty to be effective, or be politically impossible for many reasons, at least in a somewhat democratic system.

Private: DRM systems that get invasive enough to be effective (and there haven't been many for very long), will incur a drastic competitive disadvantage to competitors who are less invasive. Longterm strict DRM would not be sustainable for many, many reasons. DRM is in effect asking players to pay a tax in both money (bandwidth/dev costs) and quality (time, inconvenience) that is far, FAR too high for the results. Oh, and it will always break in commercial software to some degree - and be a giant point of failure, the more strict it gets.

Legal: Even with oceans of legal text, and lawsuits constantly popping up - you can't scale anywhere close to the level of "fixing the problem" using the legal system. Physical counterfeiting you can come close - but you can't stop the world from copying music from radio, or any of the thousands of ways copies of stuff can be made with a legal system. Some judges may be accommodating, but to scale to the level you'd need - even the most industry-friendly judge is going to get sick of the game and dance, and the whole thing is going to get shut down just by targeting such a large portion of the populace. Think the drug war is a travesty? A significant war on 'illegal copying' would catch even more in its net.

This system of vaguely increasing 'ISP warnings' followed by inconvenience is about as close to what you can expect to be tolerated. Give the industry the right to issue fines at will, and the backlash (and targeting failures) would be amazing.

Want to make a system that works? Look at Steam. That setup is amazing - promote the games, make it really easy, prioritize a good direct experience, make it easier and better on average than the Pirate Bay experience - and you'll get 70+% of your potential market. I know that 30% you think you're losing hurts in the gut a little - but irritating your customers with DRM will lose you much more over time, and devote a portion of your development setup towards a developer job everyone in the room will hate, taking up large parts of meetings, making everyone uptight about worrying about pirates, making your product worse.

Amazon and and iTunes and such also do a somewhat decent job, and getting into worse areas would be the XBox/Playstation marketplaces and EA's Origin - the sales techniques get more invasive the worse you go, and they get to feel less a good experience than The Pirate Bay as you travel along this road of annoyance.

I like being paid for my work - but I don't find DRM or annoying interfaces (including unnecessary network usage) to be good ways to make a living. People can and most definitely WILL buy software they would otherwise download if it is a good convenient experience, and if the software isn't sabotaged against use. Investing time in sabotaging your sofware is NOT time well spent.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Parser error. Cannot enforce. (3, Insightful)

bemymonkey (1244086) | about a year ago | (#44805241)

Steam is a bad example... when I play PC games, I'm at my PC, with a broadband internet connection (which is the only reason Steam's DRM works halfway decently). Ever had a connection problem with Steam? Issues getting into offline mode? It's incredibly frustrating, and would be completely unacceptable for music, TV or movies especially if you wanted to use them on mobile devices.

Re:Parser error. Cannot enforce. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44806365)

A better example against Amazon and iTunes is Spotify Premium (aka the reason why I stopped pirating).

I guess the biggest incentive to buy is quality. I bought Minecraft even though I'm only playing it 2 times a year and it's quite expensive. I bought a humble indie bundle just because it reminded me of good old quality games (Serious Sam), even though I knew I'm never going to play it.

Re:Parser error. Cannot enforce. (1)

lexman098 (1983842) | about a year ago | (#44807451)

Honest question, what do people have against Origin exactly? I know it's made by EA, and the game selection isn't nearly as great as steam, but I've used it a little bit and it seems like a decent competitor. There was nothing that really seemed off-putting about it. They even did a humble bundle recently and let you active those games on steam!

And in related news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804751)

Baseball analogies don't work in the rest of the world where they don't play baseball

(Hpw about yellow card and red card like in (soccer) football

Re:And in related news (1)

stealth_finger (1809752) | about a year ago | (#44806039)

Baseball analogies don't work in the rest of the world where they don't play baseball

(Hpw about yellow card and red card like in (soccer) football

Not being funny, but even though an American team wins the world series every time the whole world knows what three strikes means.

Of course not (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about a year ago | (#44804771)

They prevent 2 more chances to sue.

VPN is $5/mo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804845)

Send Interpol after me, douchebags.

iPredator, there are others. Use the legal system against them.

Want me to stop pirating? I pay for Netflix and other services. I'm happy to. Make it easy and I won't bother. $200/mo for cable? That's a car payment or a retirement fund..

Pirates are good for the economy. (5, Insightful)

fonitrus (1763632) | about a year ago | (#44804857)

few years back RIAA did a research to prove pirates are hurting their bottom lines. The research was finalised and it proved pirates spent more money on music and videos than the non pirate counterparts.

people dont realise that piracy in fact forces people who produce music and videos to give it their BEST to produce something worth while paying money for.

people pirate games, videos and music and when they discover the game is junk they dont buy it. same for movies and music.
if somone made an awesome album or a game then shortly after the free 'preview' alot of 'pirates' end up buying the game or movies for their collection.

Pirates have improved the overall quality of productions across the board because they DO SPEND money on good stuff and avoid the junk outthere.

But that research never made it the mainstream media because its easier to manufacture junk and try and sell it that try and make quality stuff. :)

Re:Pirates are good for the economy. (2)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year ago | (#44804949)

few years back RIAA did a research to prove pirates are hurting their bottom lines. The research was finalised and it proved pirates spent more money on music and videos than the non pirate counterparts.

Actually, the RIAA has done several such studies, starting in the 1970's when people were "pirating" music by copying vinyl LPs onto cassettes to share with their friends. And again in the 1908s. And again in the 1990s.

And, funny thing. every study they do ends up saying that the dirty pirates spend more money buying music than the honest non-pirating folks.

Re:Pirates are good for the economy. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804993)

And again in the 1908s.

Those wax music cylinders are sure easy to copy these days. No DRM at all.

Re:Pirates are good for the economy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805007)

Actually, the RIAA has done several such studies, starting in the 1970's when people were "pirating" music by copying vinyl LPs onto cassettes to share with their friends. And again in the 1908s. And again in the 1990s.

That explains how their outdated model never dies out. Whenever it completely breaks they just have to go back in time, kill whoever invented tapes or whatever technology they fell like blaming and they're back in business.

Re:Pirates are good for the economy. (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about a year ago | (#44805231)

And, funny thing. every study they do ends up saying that the dirty pirates spend more money buying music than the honest non-pirating folks.

If this is true, what is your conclusion as to why the RI/MPAA don't court the pirates? Free advertising is free advertising after all.

Re:Pirates are good for the economy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805507)

Because in order to maintain, or enforce greater control, they need to show that there are adversarial forces out there attempting to undermine them.

How can they bribe congress into allowing them greater control and eternal copyright, if there isnt a boogeyman out there for them to wail about?

Re:Pirates are good for the economy. (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year ago | (#44805601)

It's not just about the money. It's also about control.

Re:Pirates are good for the economy. (1)

TheSeatOfMyPants (2645007) | about a year ago | (#44805751)

I suspect you don't know any actual creators. They automatically do the best they can under the circumstances (which often means rushing to meet contracts rather than taking their time to fine-tune their work length), out of a mixture of professional pride and knowing they have to compete with everyone else for sales.

Three Strikes Laws in the US (1)

mendax (114116) | about a year ago | (#44804997)

Fortunately, such legislation will never survive constitutional scrutiny in the United States. Access to the Internet is a First-Amendment right. No law or government action can ban any individual from the Internet with certain very narrow exceptions, these applying to those on parole, probation, or federal supervised release, and even then appeals courts have been very hesitant to uphold such bans. Such restrictions almost never survive and only apply to people who have egregiously abused access to the Internet (e.g., computer hacking, selling or operating a child pornography distribution site), and even then only for as long as they're still under the thumb of parole or the courts. Once clear of them, the Internet is free and open. Now, an ISP can ban access to the Internet but the Internet is now so close to being ubiquitous, almost like the phone system, that's close to impossible now.

Despite the massive flaws in the American system which are frequently pointed out by myself and others here, we Yanks really are quite blessed by the the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights.

Re:Three Strikes Laws in the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805451)

So far, nobody has been cut off the internet for a prolonged time, but a lot of people believe that it would also violate EU rights. Especially in countries where many government services are most conveniently available via the internet this kind of legislation is highly likely to fall in EU courts at the latest.

Re:Three Strikes Laws in the US (1)

MadMaverick9 (1470565) | about a year ago | (#44806209)

uh - think again.

http://torrentfreak.com/six-strikes-anti-piracy-scheme-starts-monday-130223/ [torrentfreak.com]

Time Warner Cable will temporarily interrupt people's ability to browse the Internet.

https://ixquick.com/do/search?q=host%3Atorrentfreak.com+six+strikes+piracy&lui=english [ixquick.com]

Improve it (2)

manu0601 (2221348) | about a year ago | (#44805005)

I am sure it would work better if the decision was made by a secret court. The convicted user and its ISP would be informed by a National Security Letter with a gag order. After all this is about maintaining order, and we know it requires some secrecy. Otherwise pesky journalists brag about government wrongdoing about human rights, while it is just busy protecting the economy (and healthy economy means you may get a job if you apply where it has been off-shored, so this is for your own good).

Some raised issues about the whether it is possible to cut internet access without cutting the phone when the ISP provides both. There is a simple solution to that: instead of cutting internet access, the secret court could decide to abduct the user to a rehabilitation camp, where he could be taught about its wrongdoing using modern techniques such as waterboarding. That could be off-shored to some dictator-led third world country to save money, while still creating jobs opportunities at the same time (see above).

Re:Improve it (1)

thewolfkin (2790519) | about a year ago | (#44807015)

I am sure it would work better if the decision was made by a secret court. The convicted user and its ISP would be informed by a National Security Letter with a gag order. After all this is about maintaining order, and we know it requires some secrecy. Otherwise pesky journalists brag about government wrongdoing about human rights, while it is just busy protecting the economy (and healthy economy means you may get a job if you apply where it has been off-shored, so this is for your own good).

Some raised issues about the whether it is possible to cut internet access without cutting the phone when the ISP provides both. There is a simple solution to that: instead of cutting internet access, the secret court could decide to abduct the user to a rehabilitation camp, where he could be taught about its wrongdoing using modern techniques such as waterboarding. That could be off-shored to some dictator-led third world country to save money, while still creating jobs opportunities at the same time (see above).

I say good sir. You raise some jolly good ideas you do. However I propose an alternative solution for your consideration. We have a large number of people infringing up on this problem. That represents a sizable force that could be utilized in some manner rather than occupying them for some time with your conditioning. Instead we could use them to shore up economic and militaristic deficits. Rather than wasting time trying to repair the mental facilities of those who are obviously unable to change, we could use their numbers to bolster our side in this conflict I hear we're planning, after of course they've repaid their social debt by doing repairs and the like they could repay their ethical debt to society by doing a bit of good for a change.

Research also shows that drug laws don't work. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805037)

It's not about whether they work, but about who wants them.

!why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805479)

shhhh. hh .h hh. hhh .. h h. h

How is it not effective? (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year ago | (#44806489)

Don't they get cut off from the internet or jail, or fines or something, after the third strike?
It would be pretty hard to continue infringing in jail, or after being bared from the internet.

Re:How is it not effective? (1)

thewolfkin (2790519) | about a year ago | (#44806959)

a) it could be rather hard to bar someone from the internet. the determined (even mildly) individual can find ways around it. b) the thread of violence is supposed to be enough to stop violence. That's the principle behind many laws. I think that includes this law. I propose that the idea behind the law was that by cutting off people from the internet it was supposed to cow the rest into submission. It could be failing to cow anyone into submission either of those cases represents "failure" of the law

I dont pirate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44806513)

Its not a principled stand,but convenience.

To get a quality download from a torrent is a pain in the ass. Even with a 10 mb/s down, finding the right file is a hit,or miss.
Then there are the private networks, where I have to pay a monthly subscription.
I'm not giving my credit info to some gray market vendor...

Or, I can just go to a kiosk a few blocks away and be done with. For about $1.50 a day.

Get a freaking clue, Hollywood (RIAA, etc.) .

Not effective? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44806631)

Then, have a one strike law.

and the tradition continues (1)

thewolfkin (2790519) | about a year ago | (#44806941)

so they're basically about as effective as the other three strikes laws

Death by Tortue (1)

shawnhcorey (1315781) | about a year ago | (#44806957)

Even death by torture [torrentfreak.com] didn't stop copying. Time to eliminate copyright completely.

Crackdowns cause "piracy" to explode (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44807303)

The announcement of The Final Crackdown which is coming Real Soon causes "piracy" to explode in popularity. Each crackdown is billed as the scariest and most final crackdown. People think "I'd better get all I can while I can before this stops!" Each time the big-media copyright industry has proposed their slow-moving crackdowns, the result has been a spread of more piracy than ever before. Since the crackdowns are all bark and no bite (in the US, one or two people have actually gone to court), the end result is more piracy than ever. The scare campaigns that happen every few years probably do scare a few people, but they encourage many more to go ahead and share before the crackdown starts in six months, eight months, next year, whenever.

It might have worked on some of my neighbors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44807577)

But after their internet is cut off, I just go and find yet another unsecured wifi connection to hop onto.

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>