Page 1 of 2 [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Madbones
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2010
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Posts: 777
Location: In the zone

19 Feb 2013, 8:32 pm

Hey!
Is it me or is the FBI a little over dramatic when it comes to copyright?
With the raid they did on Kim Dotcom, youd think he was the second Osama Bin Ladin.... They where acting like he was a serial killer.
So why? Why are they so dramatic about this kind of stuff?


_________________
?Sometimes when you innovate, you make mistakes. It is best to admit them quickly, and get on with improving your other innovations.? -Steve Jobs.


CornerPuzzlePieces
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 27 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 316
Location: B.C Canada

19 Feb 2013, 8:45 pm

Some of it is for show to deter others, some of it is because rich people are losing money.

You notice it is mostly Media copyright and not patent violations?

No-one cares if someone's idea get stolen.. but if a million dollar production video gets shared for free on the internet all hell breaks loose! :lol:


As a side note he had amassed a small fortune because of megaupload... so he had assests for them to go after/seize.



ZakFiend
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 564

19 Feb 2013, 11:49 pm

Because the laws were unfairly made by corporate/rich people. If you actually take a look at the history of copyright, no one should respect it anymore since corporations have successfully stolen peoples right to own their own products and stolen the public domain.

The whole purpose behind it was to promote useful arts and sciences, unfortunately the law has become completely corrupt and criminal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_ ... ension_Act

http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/ ... efault.htm



Stargazer43
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Nov 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,681

20 Feb 2013, 1:33 am

Yep, because copyright=money in someone's pockets. When money is involved, everyone wants a piece of the pie! Not to mention, all of those bigwig movie producers have some pretty darn good lawyers lol.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,959
Location: International House of Paincakes...

20 Feb 2013, 8:14 am

The bottom line is that copyright violation is theft. Sure, some big corporations may have taken things too far... And I do believe that people should be able to OWN the things they buy...

However, I also believe that producers of media deserve to profit from their labors.

You like watching movies and playing games that cost millions to produce? If so, you need to pay for for doing so. If you don't, it won't be long before NOBODY will be willing to produce anything.

That's economics, pure and simple.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Trencher93
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2008
Age: 119
Gender: Male
Posts: 465

20 Feb 2013, 8:37 am

As simply as I can put this, the copyright industry (the MPAA, RIAA, the big 5 publishers, etc) used to make money off of scarcity. Someone had to be a "gatekeeper" deciding which books, music, movies, etc would be published, and then a corporation controlled the physical manufacture of goods and the distribution to retail outlets.

Digital media is "frictionless" - if one copy can be made of a digital file, everyone on the planet can have a copy. This has caused a race to the bottom, where there is no friction and every digital file can spread instantly. Money is made from the friction. Without friction, no gatekeepers are needed. No manufacturing has to happen. Before, I'd want something badly enough to pay a corporation to prepare it, package it, and sell it to me. That's no longer true.

The survival of the copyright industry is in doubt. The copyright industry has a vast back catalogue of old books, music, movies, etc which they sell to generate revenue. So if there is no friction, everyone can have an instant copy of this material, if they want it. Once that's possible, how do you make any money? You can't. You make money from friction, and there is no more friction.

The copyright industry has a lot of money. They are using the legal system to get laws passed and draconian punishments enforced to deter the race to the bottom and introduce friction again. Punishments for copyright violation are more harsh than punishments for physical crimes against other people.

Also, the copyright industry is trying to introduce artificial scarcity again using things like DRM, bandwidth caps, etc. Anything to add the friction back. You can study the recent Microsoft Office 2013 story as an example. They're trying to make Office a disposable commodity, where you buy a new copy every time you get a new computer. This is artificial scarcity. (Obviously the software itself can run on any computer. There's no friction.) Microsoft is trying to teach young people that software has to be purchased every time a computer is purchased. (Old people like me think this is silly, but then old people like me use LaTeX and they hope will eventually die off leaving only people they've trained to buy software every time a new computer is purchased.)

Contrast the copyright industry's approach to that of Amazon.com. Amazon is embracing the lack of friction. They let anyone publish for their platform, creating a race to the bottom where authors make an average of less than $500/year on their works. There's more supply than demand. And the Kindle Fire is sold at cost, creating a frictionless device with no margin - how does any other hardware manufacturer compete with a company that doesn't want to make a profit? Amazon makes its money from logistics and distribution, both digital and physical. Amazon just wants a cut of everything that moves from point A to point B.

Of course, Amazon.com consistently loses money. Part of the race to the bottom. How can any company be profitable by eliminating friction when friction is how you make money?

Another contrast is the patronage model, popularized by Kickstarter. You can pay up-front for someone to create something new that you want. If enough people want something new, then they pay ahead of time. The creator makes whatever it is, and from then on it's frictionless and spreads. The creator gets money up-front. (This model doesn't work for the copyright industry, because it has a back catalogue of old stuff.)



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,139

20 Feb 2013, 11:59 am

The problem with organizations like MPAA is that they are increasingly becoming nothing more than a transaction cost, an obstacle between the producers and the consumers of digital entertainment. They have outlived their usefulness in the digital age, and they have failed to adapt to more modern platforms. The future of the motion picture industry is in streaming/cloud services. No need for MPAA dinosaurs here.

For instance, a lot of people no longer want to sit at a *specific* time watching a *specific* TV channel showing a *single* episode of a TV series with commercial breaks every 15 minutes. Instead, go on Netflix... get a view-on-demand full season at a click of a button.

I am against piracy, but I have little or no sympathy for MPAA either, as they are pirates themselves due to Hollywood accounting.


_________________
Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.

- Daniel Kahneman


ScrewyWabbit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,183

20 Feb 2013, 5:54 pm

Madbones wrote:
Hey!
Is it me or is the FBI a little over dramatic when it comes to copyright?
With the raid they did on Kim Dotcom, youd think he was the second Osama Bin Ladin.... They where acting like he was a serial killer.
So why? Why are they so dramatic about this kind of stuff?


Simple, the same people who own a lot of copyrights are also largely the same people that have bought the government. Do you think these people care if some poor schmuck gets killed on some non-descript street corner? But they sure as hell care if you've made copies of some movie.



coffee_converter
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27

20 Feb 2013, 7:52 pm

The reason is that's the way Amer... sorry 'Merica does things, with far more force and brutality than what's needed. :)



Feralucce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,257
Location: New Orleans, LA

22 Feb 2013, 1:34 pm

As a creative person who holds the copyright on several intellectual properties... I of two minds on this.

first of all, the intent of the originally copyright law was 14 years with an option to renew for another 14. The concept was that after 28 years, a work was either part of our collective/public consciousness and should be entered into the public domain or dead to the world.

Today's copyright law is a mockery of the original intent and the big companies (even if they have sacrificed their claim to copyright) will fight, fight, fight for something that doesn't benefit the IP creator in any manner.

That being said...I support copyright law.

Speaking from experience... I have had someone steal my work... not a copy of one of my finished films, but someone took my script, ripped it up and made a derivative work without permission. A female friend of mine in the same situation has stated that having her IP stolen was "Akin to mental rape."

So...I support copyright law... I do not support the way some people have been treated as a response to copyright law.

That being said... To coffee_converter... If you think america has been hard on copyright violators...I recommend you hit the search engines and see how other countries have handled it... it's a cake walk.


_________________
Yeah. I'm done. Don't bother messaging and expecting a response - i've left WP permanently.


coffee_converter
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27

22 Feb 2013, 2:43 pm

Feralucce wrote:
That being said...I support copyright law.


good for you, though personally I have completely given up on copyright law, and I think it might be technically unconstitutional (making a derivative work could be considered to be part of my freedom of speech).



Feralucce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,257
Location: New Orleans, LA

22 Feb 2013, 3:40 pm

ACTUALLY... copyright law was in the original constitution.


_________________
Yeah. I'm done. Don't bother messaging and expecting a response - i've left WP permanently.


coffee_converter
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27

22 Feb 2013, 3:44 pm

Yes and then there was an ammendment, the first ammendment.
To be honest, I don't think the founding fathers quite understood that the idea of copyright kind of goes against the idea of freedom of speech.



Feralucce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,257
Location: New Orleans, LA

22 Feb 2013, 4:04 pm

I think that they did... and freedom of speech is not infringed by copyright law.

Copyright clause of the constitution:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

First amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You can say anything you want. That is a protected right. But to steal someone's work is not protected.


_________________
Yeah. I'm done. Don't bother messaging and expecting a response - i've left WP permanently.


ScrewyWabbit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,183

22 Feb 2013, 5:57 pm

Its the "securing for limited Times" part that's been completely perverted. I think this is known as the "Mickey Mouse rule", because literally every time the copyright on Micky Mouse is about to expire, Disney lobbies congress and - poof! - the term on all copyrights is retroactively extended.

Beyond that though I support copyright law too, but the original poster in this thread is correct - the law enforcement and other efforts devoted to prevent copyright theft is vastly disproportional to the resources they devote to more serious problems.