Quote :

"No, you're just changing who owns the content. If you want to argue semantics, then I should have probably said "Content creators owners have to control their content in order to make money". Content is otherwise worthless, and wouldn't exist in the first place."

Wow. No.
You can't own content anyway. Even the most supporting of copyright law scholars will tell you, you don't actually own anything. You have legal rights granted to form a temporary monopoly on copies of information -- you simply do not own anything. Content cannot be owned. Period.

Quote :

"IP theft is theft. plain and simple."

No, it is not theft. At all. IP is theft. Intellectual "property" itself, is theft.
PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

Quote :

"copyright law exists to encourage people to create new ideas because it guarantees them some return on that investment."

Cutting edge and robust ideas can and are created without any guarantee of return. Copyright laws may help in certain areas, but are not necessary in all of them.

Quote :

"for some things the length of time copyright is good fo is a little much, but its a good thing."

Understatement of the century -- not to mention copyright terms were retroactively lengthened. That is complete bullshit.

Quote :

"It prevents stagnation by encouraging new ideas and those who are quick to adapt to changes"

There are other viable business models that have been proven to work. In fact, both innovation and adaptation are better in some of them.

Quote :

"content creation is only a worthwhile service when someone can own the created content. If the content cant be owned then there is no incentive to create the content in the first place."

100% false, and 100% false. YOU CANNOT OWN AN IDEA. COPYRIGHT HOLDERS DO NOT OWN THEIR IDEAS. THEY HAVE LEGAL RIGHTS, AND THAT'S IT. THE RIGHTS ARE SIMILAR TO ACTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, BUT IDEAS, BY THEIR VERY NATURE CANNOT BE PROPERTY
PERIOD.

(I happen to know that there's almost no chance in convincing the handful of idiots out there that insist ideas can and should be owned -- all they see is a 20th century out-dated business model and dollar signs. They simply don't care how much they hurt society by stealing ideas through the false perception of "ownership". Check back in 50 years and see just how wrong you all are. I've said all I need to say on the matter.)

[Edited on June 24, 2010 at 2:18 PM. Reason : ]

6/24/2010 1:57:49 PM

Quote :

"If the content cant be owned then there is no incentive to create the content in the first place."

Christ you're off base with this. I've listed many examples in this thread of times when great content is created, with no expectation of getting paid much, or getting paid at all. How are you not seeing that?

6/24/2010 2:42:06 PM

Quote :

"Which is in part my point. The content industry has in general failed to make acquisition of digital media easier for their customers than the pirates have. But the solution is not wasting money trying to beat the pirates into submission (not going to happen) it's making new ways to access and consume the content that's easier than pirating."

The content industry is not more innovative than the pirates. These two entities are equally capable of distribution innovation. One entity is constrained - by laws, by what content have to deliver, the need to control that content and the need to extract payment. The other entity has no constraints - it can delivery any and all digital content from a single source with total disregard . Logically, pirates will always beat content owners.

Quote :

"it's also worth noting that iTunes sales fell immediately following the record companies finally getting their way and being able to have different prices, notably more expensive prices. And as anyone who slept through Econ 101 can tell you, as prices go up, demand goes down."

Thats beside the point.

6/24/2010 2:44:16 PM

xvang:

Quote :

"And to pay $55 for a game on Steam and not even get a stand alone copy, is just bogus"

Completely agree with you. But there is one word for how to shop on Steam. Patience. When the game first is released, its ridiculous to pay full retail for it. You don't get the box, the manual, or anything. I only did that for one game, Battlefield: Bad Company 2. But usually in 1 month, the price starts coming down. Give it 3 months and they really start dropping the price and putting deals on it. I have such a backlog of games that I simply wait for the Steam weekend sales and pick them up then. I already have more games than time, so when I get to them, I get to them.

6/24/2010 3:44:10 PM

Nighthawk, you haven't been reading this thready obviously. If you don't like the price of something, you simply steal it, not shop around or wait for sales.

6/24/2010 3:50:06 PM

The dilemma of encouraging content production, to the extent that it exists, comes from our irrational (for the common good) economic system. Since the 1920s we've had the technical ability to produce an abundance of the basic and thus let everyone live comfortably.

6/24/2010 4:09:36 PM

Quote :

"The other entity has no constraints - it can delivery any and all digital content from a single source with total disregard . Logically, pirates will always beat content owners. "

And yet services like Hulu, iTunes and Pandora remains a success, thus disproving your statement. The fact that the solution is difficult and may requires a complete restructuring of the music industry business model is irrelevant. People getting rich off music or any form of entertainment is a relatively recent phenomenon anyway, there's a reason for the starving artist stereotype. Go back far enough and the only people that got well paid for entertainment creation were those that created on a commissioned basis.

Quote :

"Thats beside the point."

You're kidding right? The fact that you are using a decline in online music sales to support your assertion that piracy is a growing problem and eating into legal sales, and then ignoring that the content industry is engaging in practices that would reduce their sales even if there were no piracy whatsoever is disingenuous at best.

Quote :

"Nighthawk, you haven't been reading this thready obviously. If you don't like the price of something, you simply steal it, not shop around or wait for sales."

The two actions are not mutually exclusive.

[Edited on June 24, 2010 at 4:18 PM. Reason : sdgh]

6/24/2010 4:11:31 PM

Is the argument that music shouldn't be profitable now because it hasn't always been so?

6/24/2010 4:38:47 PM

Not at all, the argument is that declining sales and revenue numbers do not mean that piracy is the cause or reason for the entertainment industry's woes.

6/24/2010 5:12:30 PM

Quote :

"You're kidding right? The fact that you are using a decline in online music sales to support your assertion that piracy is a growing problem and eating into legal sales, and then ignoring that the content industry is engaging in practices that would reduce their sales even if there were no piracy whatsoever is disingenuous at best. "

I was using that fact in the context of an increase in the sales of MP3 devices. If music sales were declining due to less demand for music, then player sales would also decline. They haven't though. Thus, I am making a point that piracy rates are not falling even as content delivery has improved.

Quote :

"Which is in part my point. The content industry has in general failed to make acquisition of digital media easier for their customers than the pirates have. "

Quote :

"And yet services like Hulu, iTunes and Pandora remains a success, thus disproving your statement. "

So which is it? Has the content industry failed at providing content or hasn't it? Actually, Hulu is losing money and will go to a subscription system soon, which is not likely to be favorably received. Pandora is also turning to subscription service.

Content delivery is not going to reach a point where most pirates say "Oh this is good enough, we'll start paying now". The content providers are not holding data "hostage" such that piracy is a neccesity - this is the original notion that I am trying to play down.

6/24/2010 5:44:55 PM

Quote :

"I was using that fact in the context of an increase in the sales of MP3 devices. If music sales were declining due to less demand for music, then player sales would also decline. They haven't though. Thus, I am making a point that piracy rates are not falling even as content delivery has improved. "

I'm sorry, but p doesn't imply q. Music player sales could increase for a multitude of reasons. It is perfectly reasonable to purchase a music player for your existing collection, your level of purchasing music going forward being independent of this purchase. It's perfectly reasonable to purchase multiple music players of different form factors (touch for travel and shuffle for working out). It's perfectly reasonable to purchase another music player to get the newest features, to replace one you broke, because the prices were lowered. Do I need to continue?

6/24/2010 6:23:36 PM

Quote :

"So which is it? Has the content industry failed at providing content or hasn't it?"

Both. I know this is difficult for you to grasp, since you are obsessed with being right to the point where you will speak in absolutes, but it is entirely possible for the industry to, as I said "in general" fail to respond to the changing market, while at the same time having some small pockets of success (such as Hulu and iTunes, though it's worth mentioning they had to be drug kicking and screaming into iTunes)

Quote :

"Content delivery is not going to reach a point where most pirates say "Oh this is good enough, we'll start paying now"."

This isn't necessary, they simply need to get delivery to a point where most customers say "Oh this is better, we'll pay for this". There is a subtle difference between pirates and customers. The pirates will never buy, no matter the price, no matter the service provided, these people aren't worth worrying about. The customers will buy once the price is equal to the service provided, because despite what you and the RIAA may think, most people are honest and happy to pay a fair price for a fair service. The trick is reaching an agreement on service and price.

Also, this ^.

[Edited on June 24, 2010 at 6:47 PM. Reason : asdf]

6/24/2010 6:47:11 PM

Quote :

"The pirates will never buy, no matter the price, no matter the service provided, these people aren't worth worrying about. "

If that's your take, then why are we having this discussion? My original point was "Piracy cannot justify itself by claiming inadequate or expensive legal content delivery". You went on to say "provably false", citing Hulu and iTunes as examples, even though their content is still widely pirated. Then, you play down their importance by calling them "small pockets of success" - confusing, since you've just debunked your earlier claim relative to the point I was making. Now you're saying piracy can't be beaten and it's not worth talking about, and I'm thinking "if that's your take, then why didn't you just say that in the first place?" That pretty much makes the entire discussion moot.

Sorry it's so difficult for me to grasp but you're confusing the fuck out of me.

[Edited on June 25, 2010 at 8:04 AM. Reason : .]

6/25/2010 8:02:50 AM

I think you're either easily confused or intentionally obtuse.

6/25/2010 8:18:03 AM

You're confusing my adherence to the relvent context of my point with narrow-mindedness.

6/25/2010 10:17:24 AM

Quote :

"My original point was "Piracy cannot justify itself by claiming inadequate or expensive legal content delivery". You went on to say "provably false", citing Hulu and iTunes as examples, even though their content is still widely pirated"

Wrong. I said the statement that content providers could not provide legal content more conveniently than pirates to paying customers was provably false. In addition to being confused about the initial argument, you also seem to be unable to grasp the idea of tiny but significant successes and the distinction between pirates and customers who pirate. Until you can grasp those concepts ...

Quote :

"I think you're either easily confused or intentionally obtuse."

+1

[Edited on June 25, 2010 at 7:56 PM. Reason : sdfg]

6/25/2010 7:55:39 PM

I havent read the entire thread, but what is the justification for illegally downloading any kind of media?

granted, the music industry acts like douchebags on the issue and we have all probably done it at some point, but that doesnt make it any less "wrong."

6/25/2010 10:57:30 PM

^

Quote :

"Intellectual "property" itself, is theft"

6/26/2010 7:21:57 AM

I am not talking about ideas, I am talking about creations like music, movies, software, etc..

6/26/2010 10:11:52 AM

Hmmm..... I agree with the OP's bolded text. "Imminent infringement"? -

"A criminal offense to bypass DRM"

I take the XKCD point of view on DRM: http://xkcd.com/488/ (don't miss the text below the comic box - THAT'S my view)

As some have mentioned, there are several DRM-free, legal music providers nowadays, but movies are lagging behind in this area: most DVDs are published today w/ CSS encryptions to prevent copying. Would the ACTA agreement make it illegal for me to use my own copy of AnyDVD, which breaks the CSS encryption and allows for copying? even if it is to add to an external hard drive? I mean, I paid for the DVD and the AnyDVD license, shouldn't I be allowed to transfer the format?

Another thing that came to mind: alot of ppl don't understand that bittorrents are not JUST used for piracy (though they are often used for it), they are simply another way of transferring files (some argue that it's safer and faster than traditional downloading from a single host?). For example, alot of open source projects suggest you download linux distros, etc. from bittorrent because they like that method of distribution better than traditional method!

[Edited on June 26, 2010 at 10:41 AM. Reason : torrent part, clarity]

6/26/2010 10:28:19 AM

Quote :

"Would the ACTA agreement make it illegal for me to use my own copy of AnyDVD, which breaks the CSS encryption and allows for copying? even if it is to add to an external hard drive? I mean, I paid for the DVD and the AnyDVD license, shouldn't I be allowed to transfer the format?"

The short answer is yes. If it works around the CSS encryption, then it would be illegal. Which is a massive loss of rights for consumers, and enough of a reason to stop the law cold, IMO.

6/26/2010 12:39:24 PM

I agree with that. it is very frustrating trying to rip to your own content for your mp3 players and what not and being unable to do so



[Edited on June 26, 2010 at 4:12 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2010 4:02:27 PM

Quote :

"The short answer is yes. If it works around the CSS encryption, then it would be illegal. Which is a massive loss of rights for consumers, and enough of a reason to stop the law cold, IMO."

this....is exactly what I was afraid of. The software would be rendered useless by this legislation

6/26/2010 6:00:31 PM

well, the trick is that it'd be illegal in the US. A lot of development of applications like Handbrake and so forth occurs outside of this country, so it's not like the law would be able to touch them. And most of those developers would continue their efforts most likely, in any case. But no, you wouldn't be able to go buy a retail application to copy DVDs, with technical support and upgrades or anything.

The moment you place restrictive DRM on purchased materials, then rewrite copyright laws to prevent a copy owner to make copies for personal use... you fundamentally alter the rights of the consumer. This situation hasn't changed since copyright laws were widely adopted, and its only been in the last 20 years where large content producers have sought to tip the balance in their own favor. You saw it with Jack Valenti railing against BetaMax and VCRs to Congress, and you're seeing it again with anti-DRM-defeating measures. It's a terrible time to be a customer of the entertainment industry.

6/26/2010 6:07:10 PM

Quote :

"I am not talking about ideas, I am talking about creations like music, movies, software, etc.."

Ummmm...
:\

6/26/2010 11:29:13 PM