I don't read twitter usually so I completely lack the ability to follow conversations about what's being said, but supposedly there's some good info in there. Anyone willing to translate?
A torrent site should be as responsible for indexing torrents as much as Google should be responsible for indexing sites with illegal materials.
Except I'm not really talking about torrent sites as I realize they just index the stuff.
But there are file sharing sites out there that HOST illegal content, and by all means they should be shut down.
See, that's the thing, they aren't lost profits because a pirate was never going to pay for it in the first place. I understand your stance on pirating and how it's illegal, but its simply not true that companies are losing sales because of pirates. It's the small guys that get the brunt of pirating and I'm definitely not advocating it.
If anything, pirating increases sales because it helps expose artists that people can't normally find on iTunes and the like.
I mentioned Spotify earlier, and their US launch delay despite having the servers ready to go since last year in October.
Quote:
European music startup Spotify has all its “ducks lined up” for a U.S. launch, we’ve heard from multiple sources. It has servers ready to go in the US and, crucially, users already there, even though it has not yet officially launched. In fact it has 30,000 users in the U.S., according to the chatter coming out of the Stockholm tech scene where the company has its main development arm. But these users are being kept quiet.
So why isn’t Spotify launching in the U.S. right now?
It has a wealthy Asian investor in Li Ka-Shing, who invested in Facebook in 2007, Northzone Ventures and Creandum as backers. It has investment from the big music labels – Universal Music Group, Sony BMG, EMI Music, Warner Music Group. It also has “strategic” investors, which include rights holders in other geographic locations, according to our sources, and a mooted $250 million valuation.
We’ve also heard that monetization of the platform is going gangbusters, with most of the upgrades to premium subscriptions being driven by the ability to hold a library of music on the iPhone and Android.
The simple reason, as one of our well placed sources close to the company tell us, is this blunt fact: “Warner are being arseholes.” Yes, that’s a direct quote.
As you will no doubt recall, Warner was the one music label which had huge legal wranglings with YouTube, until the video site eventualy called its bluff and deleted all of Warner’s artists from the service. It was only after that happened that Warner came back to the negotiating table, some months after.
But our information is that Spotify has actually been technically ready for a US launch since October last year. It is only protracted legal negotiations with Warner which is holding everything up. All the other labels are apparently now on board.
Now, of course that is just one side of the story. But Spotify knows that it can’t launch in the US without Warner’s artist roster in its catalogue. UPDATE: We checked with Spotify and a spokeperson had this to say: “We have great relationships with all of our label partners and we don’t have 30,000 users in the US, this is completely factually incorrect.”
We stand by our sources.
Penalties are reduced for individuals who circumvent for personal purposes. Doesn't this solve the problem?
No. First, claims that reduced penalties removes the impediment to Canadians circumventing digital locks for personal purposes assumes that concern for statutory damages is the primary motivator for a particular action. I disagree. In the education world, teachers and students will not break the lock because academic guidelines will make it clear that they can't. Similarly, research will also be stifled in the same way since researchers sign ethics documents when they apply for grants that their research plan is compliant with all laws. They can't sign the document in this situation, regardless of the likelihood of damages.
Second, C-32 also makes the distribution and marketing of devices (ie. software) used to circumvent illegal. This suggests it will be more difficult to get those tools (and perhaps risky), so the notion that people will circumvent in light of lower penalties is undermined by the underground nature of being able to do so.
Third, from a bigger picture perspective, rights holders have been complaining for years that the public does not respect copyright. This bill is an attempt to revive respect for copyright by having the law better reflect current norms (and therefore make it more respectable). However, you do not build respect for copyright by creating provisions that outlaw something but have the government indirectly say it is acceptable to violate its new rule. C-32 should craft rules that generate support and acceptance in the public and thereby build support and acceptance for copyright more broadly.
That's a good point, reducing the penalties to make it unappealing for rights holders to sue people still doesn't make it legal.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Here is a question my wife had and I am not sure how to answer it.
My wife and I are not very tech savy and have not really tried to rip our DVD's to our hard drive but we have done a few.
I know that downloading movies is illegal but what about downloading movies for back-up purposes so you do not have to go thru the process of ripping them yourself.
Would this fall under the illegal category but since it is for personal use, the penalties are too low for them to sue me.
Or is this the type of situation the government is trying to stop and penalties are much higher?
I find it easier to download movies I already own so I can stream them vs trying to rip them myself.
Except I'm not really talking about torrent sites as I realize they just index the stuff.
But there are file sharing sites out there that HOST illegal content, and by all means they should be shut down.
Where do you draw the line? What about a site like rapidshare? There's a ton of content on there that goes against some of this copyright stuff. They make no claim to know what they're hosting - it's all user uploaded. Should they be forced to check everything that's put on their service?
If so... what do you feel is the level of responsibility of an ISP to snoop into your web traffic? Those evil pirated mp3s are going through their routers after all.
Should google be monitoring your gmail inbox? Who knows if someone's e-mailed you a bootleg song and it's hosted on their server now.
If you start going after service providers (websites, e-mail, uploaders, ISPs, etc) the waters can get pretty muddy pretty fast and the level of work and lost privacy that would result is far outweighs what they're trying to stop.
The Following User Says Thank You to Phaneuf3 For This Useful Post:
Rapidshare does already delete illegal content when they find it, but its tough to keep up.
Exactly - it's impossible to stop in any realistic sense. Any attempt to shut down copyright infringement on that type of platform (short of completely shutting it and any similar service down) is doomed to fail.
The stupid part about this whole thing is that people pay for pirated downloads. They pay for usenet, they pay for rapidshare, they pay for bandwidth. There's a market for large volumes of music and video at low prices.
The music industry's pricing is built on a model where people hear music on the radio, that's the only music they're exposed to, and as a result it's the only music they'll buy. Then they charge monopolistic prices. It's anti-competitive and it hurts consumers. There's huge barriers to entry for new artists and labels because you need to get exposure, you need MTV, you need radio, you need iTunes or HMV.
There's a huge volume at low prices on the demand curve. There may even be more money to be made at pennies per song rather that dollars. But they'll never know the shape of the demand curve unless prices shift. What is for sure is that there will be less money to be made by the big names. The big labels will have to try harder to develop a large roster of artists rather than just marketting a few big names. But the smaller artist would probably do better. You can still sell CDs at higher prices, but the value is as collector's items, rather than for the intellectual property.
The stupid part about this whole thing is that people pay for pirated downloads. They pay for usenet, they pay for rapidshare, they pay for bandwidth. There's a market for large volumes of music and video at low prices.
Don't forget that they pay a levy for blank media.
The Following User Says Thank You to Phaneuf3 For This Useful Post:
I'm always interested in how this kind of thing will impact the industries involved. If too many people do it and profits are legitimately decimated, what kind of person is going to get into that industry? You look at a movie like The Dark Knight that made money in the billion dollar range and it looks like piracy doesn't have a huge impact, but you have to wonder how many small-time movie producers drop out.
I download the occasional movie and music...
Now we all know that there is a lot of crap out there, like most of my posts. However, I buy a lot of DVD's. I own a lot of DVD's. IF I watch a movie off the Inet and like it I will buy it if I see it out there. If you move that I watched off the Inet sucks... Guess you shouldn't have made a stupid movie. Your Batman example is good. Pirating that movie didn't affect bottom lines much. You know why? I was really good. And yes I own the steal book of it.
I'm all for downloading because this industry has no return policy. If it's a good flick, you get my bills on DVD (Which makes more money). This is my return policy.
Last edited by To Be Quite Honest; 06-09-2010 at 01:23 AM.
So to me it seems, its not just lost profits in terms of pirates who wouldn't buy the stuff anyways. Its that mainstream cultural and consumer behaviour is/has changed significantly enough where people don't even think of buying it if they like it. They just download it.
Take a step back and think about why people aren't buying certain products. Capitalism says people will pay for products they think are worth it. How can you justify paying $20 for a cd that has 2-4 "good" songs and 4-8 "filler" songs? How can you justify spending $30 on a Blu-Ray movie that is a rehash of some other cliche movie that has little to no replay value?
I'd also like to point out that there will always be cultural changes from one generation to the next. If companies/products/services/etc aren't willing to adapt then it serves them right if they fail down the line. There is nothing good or sustainable about alienating your potential clientele and forcing your s***(pun intended) down their throats. The recording industry in particular did this to themselves. Appreciation for music shouldn't be tied to monetary value.
If the government isn't willing to bail out every other business that is failing due to an outdated business model, then they shouldn't be bailing out the media industry
If the government isn't willing to bail out every other business that is failing due to an outdated business model, then they shouldn't be bailing out the media industry
Here's something to put it in perspective...
The maximum that BP can be on the hook for the oil spill liability according to the rules in place is $75 million or the equivalent of between 500 (using the American's max liability) and 937 (using the price set in 2009 trial of Thomas-Rasset) pirated mp3s.
I'll just let that sink in for a few minutes while you peruse your music collection.
