Markjmd - yeah, you've pretty much got it there. Again, effort has nothing to do with it, even though that seems to be the gist of your argument. Why should that change the fact that people can freely observe and copy the design of something without having any effect on or depriving you of anything? You'd like 'intellectual copyright' for your design (something like the thought police). And no, you're exaggeration and insistance that 'the only way' my burglar analogy would work would be if they still physically broke in, is incorrect, as it was just that, an analogy used to describe a principle. Other than basically shouting about the fact you think others should still face punishment for copying/sharing media between themselves, you haven't really given much food for thought. How can an idea be legally classed like property? Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?

 

Glesgakiss, I have to agree with F1, your argument isnt sustainable, your basically saying anyone can copy music for nothing and its not theft?
Look at it this way, you're a carpenter, you make a fantastic bit of furnature using a machine, you put a big block of wood in that you paid for and it comes out as a fantastic chair that you can get 200 quid for.
Now some guy walks in to your works, uses one of your blocks of wood and makes a chair on your machine, then walks out, of course this isnt theft as he has only copied what you have put the time, effort and money in making..... oh just wait

Theft is theft, it doesnt have to be physical to be classed as theft.

Tony

 

I think it is sustainable, but that is just my opinion based on my outlook on life.

Your above example wouldn't bother me either, the only part which doesn't fit is where the guy uses one of my blocks and makes a chair on my machine. Did I give him permission to do so? If not, then he's stolen a block of my wood and used my tools/workshop without permission. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if he just happened to be in my workshop and noticed the design of my chair and the techniques I used to make it, I wouldn't have a problem with him doing the same for himself. That's essentially what someone is doing when they copy media.

 

Ah now this is where your argument is flawed
The fact is that the media is someones block of wood and the machine was the person who created that media, the final outcome of the chair is what was designed by that person(s) and done without their permission, so as you see, even though its not physical its taking someone elses creation for nothing, and its not sustainable, people will not give away anything for nothing, so even if you look at it in one way, there is always another way which will show you a different side to the story

Tony

 

Just to answer individual points:

Yes, that's what I meant.

I didn't say it was unreasonable to demand payment for the material itself, what I said was that it was unreasonable to expect to be able to 'copyright' it.

Again, this isn't really what I was saying. You can demand what you like for the material and then complain all you like if you wish. But it is a fact that you're preventing other people from sharing it if you say by law that they can't, and that they'll face punishment for doing so.

I didn't say that either, they can market that activity however they like.

No, they have as much right as everyone else. Everyone is equal. It's not a case of restricting them from doing anything, but it's likely that without copyrights the tours would probably be the big earners.

That's pretty much it really. As I've said already, there's no divine right to monopoly of information (if it has been made known to others by the person who produced it) - it's something which is known, can be passed around without affecting its originator. In the case of music and the arts, if these people don't like that, then they can do something else. With the incentives currently on offer gone, the same people certainly wouldn't be doing the same things as they are now... it wouldn't be like they would still be mindlessly creating music with the hopes of the same rewards in mind, and then being disappointed when someone 'ripped off their work'; the reward wouldn't be there at the start, so things would be different - certain people would no longer make music: big deal. Plenty of other would, and it probably wouldn't be the same churned out, manufactured crap.

 

The media is not the block of wood, the media is just information which can be observed and copied. The machine isn't the person creating the media either, it's something they used to create the media - like pro tools etc.

 

This is interesting, look at the definitions

http://www.peterjepson.com/law/Theft%20Act%201968.htm

Tony

 

Tools cannot create media, the person behind the tools creates, the tools just help that person do it quicker.
The block of wood is the idea which is shaped, you can define it how it is or isnt, its still theft as defined by law, read the above, it doesnt say it has to be phyical, it just states it has to be owned by or personal to.

I suppose I could pop round your place, make a copy of your number plates and pick up a few fines for you? not theft though as ive not taken your numberplates, just copied them for my own personal use

Tony

 

I'd be up for that. There needs to be alot more give and take.

I for one feel that Cinemas, rentals and hard copy purchases don't give value for money. I hate teh adverts. I hate the restriction (staggered release dates). The region coding. The differening global prices etc.

In terms of TV series I hate having to wait a whole year for it to be aired knowing its already free to view in the USA.

Its the same if I miss Top Gear and download it. Techincally what is offered on Finalgear is pirate. But its far better quality than iPlayer and less restrictive (i.e I can watch it in Spain, and not restricted to a limited viewing period). So what am I going to use? The low res iPlayer or the HD pirate copy?

 

Is this what you're referring to:

At first glance it may seem like it, but on further interpretation I really don't think that contradicts anything I've said.

However, I'm not saying that I've found a loophole in the law, because even putting the above aside, there are copyright laws in place meaning action will be taken against those who 'copy'. So it's against current UK law - but not the commonsense definition (and not, I believe, to be found in the definitions above) of theft.

 

Exactly, so we're back to square one of the argument I made. And it still isn't theft.

Well that's a whole different thing entirely, but I would say that if the current number plate laws weren't in place, then feel free. If those laws weren't in place, it's unlikely that I would be found guilty of whatever offense you'd committed. Even now, it's unlikely, as I'd know where I was, that it wasn't my car, and probably have someone to back it up.

 

Actually this bit

 

Then I dont think you read it right
Put a hammer and some nails in front of you, let them hang a picture up, its not going to happen.
They are tools and as such have no place in this unless to demonstrate that they are used to help create, but the creator is one who does all the work, puts the ideas down, forms the media etc, thats who your stealing from.

Now your still not winning this argument, we can introduce cases where successful prosecutions have arisen from the theft of media, be it for personal use or personal profit.

Tony

 

But copied/shared files are not in the possession or control of the person who designed them. When it is in their possession or control, in the case of the chair example above, you haven't deprived them of anything or taken any property.

 

That's because it's illegal! I know that copyright laws are in place, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. What I'm saying is that they aren't right IMO, and I've given an argument as to why. You still haven't really refuted it.

Where have I said the tools would do the work themselves? What I'm talking about is exactly what you're talking about: the idea. How can an idea be property? If you tell me something, like how to cut wood a certain way, I can instantly just do that without you being disadvantaged in any way. You have the right to keep that idea to yourself, but once you tell others, or others find out about it once you have demonstrated it, you have no right to tell them what they can do with that knowledge.

 

Ah the old piracy debate. I've had a few discussions with a friend of mine who is actually in the film industry (has worked on various things, from small scale Canadian TV productions, to big movies such as X-Men). We both recall seeing some ad tacked onto the front of a film by some scenic artist who was going on about how pirating will put him out of a job. Really? Well, that'd mean someone working on the type of things my friend does would probably be out of work right now, are they? Nope (*cough* Silent Hill 2 *cough*)

Now, my friend did not condone piracy, but he said that he hasn't really seen it affect him, he's not being laid off jobs due to studios not putting out films due to piracy.

Hollywood is simply out of touch with the times. What they should be doing is providing high quality downloads of films, at a decent price, ie; NOT the stupid amount a DVD / BluRay costs, lets say 2 dollars a pop, at the same time the PPV / DVD would have been released to the public.
I would say that they do it at the same time the movie is playing, but they would not go for that, they would lose all that lovely revenue, then again, perhaps not. There are some films you want / need to see in the cinema, so there would still be an audience there. Additionally, if you like the film you could download it when you got home and enjoy it whenever you want.

Hollywood saying they are losing money is a joke. These are the same people who claim that Harry Potter 6 didn't make them any money, or lost them money. Umm, yeah, right, bit of "special" accounting going on here I think. You're telling me that one of the massive film franchises lost you money? Pull the other one. I *know* that the majority of the film budget goes to marketing / advertising, and there are stupidly large costs involved, but saying you're not making money on it is bollocks.

Let me put it another way, if piracy was really hurting Hollywood they would stop putting out films, wouldn't they. Pretty sure there isn't a dry spell of movies out there. Plus they do hold certain films back for some time, years in fact, to release if things look a little slack. Repo Men is a perfect example, it was released in 2010, and was actually filmed in 2008 (if I had time I'd dig out the script with the shoot date on it), so if you can have a film sitting on a shelf for a while then I don't think you're exactly wanting for money.

 

interesting thread

 

Your are dead right Markus

The creative industries are so out of touch it is scary

when the music business trot out Mercury prize winning artist Speech Debelle and ex member of a vicious south London gang to lecture me on the illegality of downloading

you know the Music execs have spent far to long with their faces buried in nose candy

 

The main point in all of this, pirated media is a better package all round. With visual entertainment..

It is easy to download and fast.
It is in a format you want it.
It is at a picture quality you want it.
You don't have to leave the house for it.
The film starts straight away, with no ads or FBI warnings.
You can stream the media around your house, with several rooms watching the same thing, at the same time.
You can't lose the disk and can make backups.
It doesn't take any storage room up.
You have not got to wait months, sometimes years to watch a TV show that has aired in another country.

If the industry pulled there finger out, they could easily address all these things. They could make a ifilms program, like itunes, where you can browse millions if films/TV, you then start the download, the prgram then buffers it and calculates when you can start to watch it without it needing to rebuffer, this would be an advantage over torrents/usenet.

When it has finished, the file goes into a folder fully id tagged, with the correct file name, this would be an advantage over torrents/usenet.

As part of the download, the program grabs all cast/production.technical details for you reading pleasure, this would be an advantage over torrents/usenet.

The product you just bought also gets deleted scenes, alternate endings, cast interviews etc this would be an advantage over torrents/usenet.

This film/tv show, would be made available all over the world to everyone at the same time, with subs for different languages, this would match torrents/usenet.

I would happily pay a small premium for blockbusters that are still only cinema release, I don't want to go to the cinema and hear people graze around me, I want to watch it in my front room

And all this for a reasonable price where you don't feel like you are being ripped off (99p a song ffs) count me in.

 

They are missing a trick too:

With the likes of bitorrent sharing, they can mass distribute a film, far far far more cheaply and faster than hosting it themselves or stamping up DVDs. So make it legal for people to buy a viewing licence then let the torrents do the rest.

The internet was orginally designed for data exchange. So why not make more efficient use of it?

 

True, thats how iplayer works, even if they had a central hub, it must be more economic than to make/print/ship millions of dvds across the planet, they could even play the green card so people think they are an all caring, planet friendly business.

 

I really can't think they can be blamed for attempting to stop people thieving their material.

Les

 

I know the music and the film industry are saying they are loosing millions now as compared with say `10 years ago but have they not considered it could be down to the global crash that has been going on for about four years now. If your strapped for cash a film or a music cd is not going to be top on anyones list.

 

:madIt's getting so bad that if you leave your car radio on when you take it to the garage they have to turn it off or they will be find for not having a licence to broadcast music same for shop no matter how small

 

Quite the contrary. They are making much much more. They are saying they are losing millions, often put down to piracy, to get support to impose more restrictive legislation and push this into law to support a monopoly like business structure.

Cd sales were down massive amounts last year (cue HMV, we are going bankrupt because of piracy) compared to ten years ago, but 2010 was a record breaking year for music sales. Most of this vast fortune was download and streaming services because who wants to buy a cd these days when 90% of the album is utter sh*t, far better to purchase individual tracks and compile a cd yourself worth listening to.

It is nothing more than a failing business model, not giving consumers what they want and red tape i.e the Beatles fiasco, aka itunes.

 

The PPL. Pure scumbags.