Forum Moderators: open
A court in Sweden has jailed four men behind The Pirate Bay (TPB), the world's most high-profile file-sharing website, in a landmark case.Frederik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Carl Lundstrom and Peter Sunde were found guilty of breaking copyright law and were sentenced to a year in jail.
They were also ordered to pay 30m kronor (£2.4m) in damages.
In a Twitter posting, Mr Sunde said: "Nothing will happen to TPB, this is just theatre for the media."
Benjamin Franklin most probably, and Thomas Jefferson most certainly would not and did not share your sentiments.
The last time Mr. Franklin and I spoke he told me something different. Maybe he was just telling me what I wanted to hear? And while Thomas and I are golf buddies, he never talks politics (to me at least, he must hold you in higher regard).
Of course, now I'll have to email this thread to Eli Whitney to see what he thinks of the matter. ;)
First of all the judgment threats pointing to copyright violations the same as copyright violation itself. Strange situation! So the anybody pointing out a child abuser is now guilty of child abuse ? The media pointing out a murder and describing it in detail are now prime candidates for death row (should any Scandinavian country have such barbaric punishment in place) ?
The music industry IMHO exists way past its warranted life. With modern technology they are obsolete, unneeded and should not be granted the power they wield.
Artists can easily edit, produce and publish themselves, with intermediaries like amazon and iTunes etc there's plenty of modern -for pay- distribution where there's no need at all for record labels. If fact they skim off so much that they drive up the costs to consumers without benefit. I've seen starting bands succumb to pressure to let one of the RIAA sister organizations sign them on: they now had to *pay* to play their own music to an audience, while they never got anything back from them (only the big fish get something). So count me with those fully against the music industry.
Out here they literally accuse businesses -without *any* proof whatsoever-, just cause you exist, of infringing on the rights holders they represent and demand you proof you don't play music.
Do we need a reminder what Sony music did with the rootkit they installed on many of our computers cause they wanted to protect _their_ rights ? How about our rights ?
Why do they get to collect money off of empty media that aren't used for copyright violations ?
Mafia practices in my book. Can't wait till they are finally gone.
And towards the future the movie industry is going to be even a bigger problem than the music industry is today. DRM in our computers ? To protect their rights, while we all pay for it, even if we don't use a computer as a multi-media device ? Region encoding so you can't play disks you bought fully legally while on vacation at all ? ...
A politician that would tackle this problem could become quite popular, if they only had the guts to stand up and say no.
File sharing: I don't mind it going away as such, although it won't it'll just migrate to places where copyright laws are less strict, go deeper underground, and shift more responsibility to all those participating in the schemes.
As to the industry doing the right thing here: There are two types of customers : those n ot willing to pay and those who do want to pay. The first kind will use things like P2P, etc but if you make it impossible for them to continue that they'll still not pay you.
The second is far more interesting: they pay for it, but they might be buying from places that cheat them out of their money. So go after the outfits that produce millions of copies of your CDs, DVDs etc. and sell the counterfeit material. That's the only money you're loosing to piracy, the rest was never there to start with.
[edited by: swa66 at 7:29 pm (utc) on April 18, 2009]
As little as twenty years ago, it was almost impossible for the average person to violate copyright.
Which 20 years ago do you speak of?
I knew a guy that ran a video store and he had a black market video copying service running non-stop in the back room until the FBI swept in one fine day and carted off his entire business.
Don't kid yourselves - the prime drivers here are powerful monied interests that really don't give a damn about promoting new stuff
You mean those same interests that spend millions promoting, developing, marketing and distributing that material?
Many authors and artists work on money fronted by these companies before there's even a final product, just an initial idea, so if these big interests didn't exist those people might have to quit creating and resort to flipping burgers or something to pay the rent.
I'm just amused that the need to attain others intellectual property seems to invoke a broken moral compass in the same people that might otherwise be upstanding citizens.
Artists can easily edit, produce and publish themselves, with intermediaries like amazon and iTunes
Musicians CAN'T easily buy mass media advertising, produce videos, book spots on Leno, Letterman, Oprah, get radio play or anything else without the recording industry.
The artists make their money touring, which if someone didn't shell out millions to advertise them in the first place, we wouldn't know about them, there wouldn't be a fan base big enough to fill a bar let alone an arena.
People really don't have a grasp on how the industry works, love them or hate them, the recording and movie industry put up tons of money artists don't have just so you get to know those artists.
Without the big backers these guys would maybe make a few thousand on Amazon or iTunes and probably disband the group before ever making a second album, let alone a third, because it would no longer be an actual career.
So music from John Doe is equally expensive to play as the best hit of any of the superstars.
Fair ? nope: it favors the big names and makes the small names impossible to get exposure, regardless of their inherent qualities as they are simply too expensive to play.
This is also a death knell for the beginning artist as they'll not get played and hence don't figure on playlist enough and hence get no money for playing their work when it does get played. It's of course good for the big names. Big names is exactly what the music industry wants. Small groups have no chance in this system.
Doing a reggae party (most reggae isn't represented by them), having a band that's got no contract with them playing, ... they'll still try their very best to charge you (basically it's extortion what they do, but they seem to able to get away with trying very hard).
So if they go away I still consider it a really good thing.
And for concerts: I'm sure organizers won't mind paying a bit less and the artists gaining a bit more themselves cutting out the middle man (50-50 deal seems to be the way to go).
It's the organizers who promote their events, not the record labels ...
Should there be a need to organize tours, I'm sure such a void can be handled by a few new companies.
well, since this is the internet: do they need to be on oprah? record a track, put it up on youtube, if it's good and people like it, it'll be seen by hundreds of thousands of people.
tay zonday did that with his "choclate rain" ... 36,467,982 views. took a talented guy, a good mic and a cam on a tripod, probably a bit of working on the sound, and voila. there's the new music industry. I happen to know a guy who "manages" a local musician that doesn't do live shows but is quite active in the studio he built in his basement. strictly online promotion because the offline scene isn't interested in artists without label, so he uses myspace etc and sells his stuff via some platform. and he sells enough to pay for his bills. that is, if people like your stuff. I'm pretty sure, without the multi million dollar PR package and a lot of sound engineers & video choreographers, current upcoming pop top acts wouldn't sell alot, because the music is really not that great.
>The artists make their money touring, which if someone
>didn't shell out millions to advertise them in the first
>place, we wouldn't know about them, there wouldn't be a
>fan base big enough to fill a bar let alone an arena.
I'm convinced: that's a question of quality. Especially with the internet and youtube, things go viral. You hear a great song, you tell your friends. within minutes, they heard it. If a band is good enough, people will hear of them. check out the hypnotic brass ensemble. they sell online now, but they didn't two years ago. but they're so good, at least in europe they're celebrated at every jazz festival they attend. the web makes it possible. or at least helps.
>People really don't have a grasp on how the industry
>works, love them or hate them, the recording and movie
>industry put up tons of money artists don't have just so
>you get to know those artists.
may be I'm not the average guy here, but most of the albums I own are not released by major labels. they're great, they deserve stardom, but most of them don't get paid millions and don't get sony to promote them with their monster machine... on the other hand, I own very little stuff that has been put out by one of the major labels. mostly because they tend to sell something other than music: they sell an image, a product. you can hear tom waits 30 years from now and it'll still be great. nobody listens to p!nk's current album 2 years from today ...
if it's good and people like it, it'll be seen by hundreds of thousands of people.
When things go viral on YouTube like "Will it Blend?" they were selling blenders.
When an art video goes viral on YouTube, that's there just for the sake of being art, you've already seen it, no commerce occurs.
Yes, let's the put it out there for free, they'll make it up on volume.
So who pays the rent?
Sure ain't YouTube.
put it out there for free
The decision to give something away for free belongs to the person/entity who created the work, or who has lawfully acquired the rights to it.
No one else.
The decision to give something away for free belongs to the person/entity who created the work, or who has lawfully acquired the rights to it.
Only if the law says so. In the case of radio for example the law says that the copyright holder does not have that choice.
There nothing impossible or immoral in a system that didn't give the copyright holders of specific types of media that choice online.
Say once you've released your song or film, anyone can licence it for sale by paying a fixed amount. This would stop the stupid balkanisation of digital content. Companies wanting to provide video or music distribution services wouldn't have to spend years negotiating to get a half way decent catalogue, they'd know in advance what they would have to pay in licences and could then experiment with different ways of selling that content, and we'd quickly get legal services that rival the illegal ones.
I think the last ten years or so show that the content industries are simply not capable of organising online distribution. Personally I'm sick of waiting for them and I don't see why we should.
we'd quickly get legal services that rival the illegal ones.
Of course we would because all the people that managed to somehow get online that live barely above the poverty level will suddenly sprout magical buckets of money to spend in the alternate distribution universe.
Not happening, they'll continue to steal it.
Not happening, they'll continue to steal it.
So what if people who don't have money infringe copyright? If they don't have money they aren't a lost sale.
But plenty of people are willing and able to pay, but frequently are unable to buy what they want.
Where can you find a particular piece of content online? Is it sold directly by the owner? do they have an exclusive deal with some service? what sort of drm does it use? do you have to install a particular piece of playing software? or a particular operating system?
Not to mention anything obscure may be simply unobtainable.
And this competes with illegal sites where you can find everything all in one place, in a variety of formats, qualities and filesizes.
I say throw it all open. The content industry has had long enough to sort this out for themselves. They haven't done it and I think it is time to look at forcing the change.
How it all shakes out I can't say, but as it stands, and with the Berne Convention standing in the middle, it will take time. Needs to be addressed, but please, do so with common sense!
Queer that and there's no incentive to create.
Wrong end of the stick: this is why copyright exists! The incentive is that your work has some degree of protection as soon as it is created. And that protection is sanctioned on an almost global basis.
Such laws get enforced and what happens? A morality play ensues!
Syzygy
I say throw it all open.
Great!
We'll start with your web site and you can report how it's working for you as you vanish in a supplemental sea of duplicate content
if we would apply that old system for music where radios pay for each time they play a song, and you'd pay for every time you "play" (read: serve) a text I wrote, I'm pretty sure I'd be just fine with you copying my website, especially if yours is a high traffic site ;)
Once you've read the website content, it's over.
We'll start with your web site and you can report how it's working for you as you vanish in a supplemental sea of duplicate content
I think I have been pretty clear that I am talking about new rules for specific types of content - music and video basically, maybe ebooks if ebook readers ever take off in a big way.
The difference is the radio generated album sales and concert sales. Once you've read the website content, it's over.
I'm sure that depends on interesting and/or static you're content is.
I'll have you know Mickey Mouse stands firmly with Benjamin Franklin on this matter.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it! ;)
@all
My rhetoric about "twenty years ago" got taken more literally than I imagined. But that's good. Brought forth a little history lesson. Yeah, there were video cassette pirates in them days. But I'm surprised nobody mentioned the Supreme Court's landmark Sony decision which prompted the video and, later on, the DVD rental business.
So OK, prior to 1970 - 1970, OK? - there was virtually no way for the average person to commit copyright infringement in any significant way. (Yes folks, there were Xerox machines at that time but let's stick with the significant.)
[thepublicdomain.org...]
Go to the Library of Congress catalogue. . . The vast majority of this material, perhaps as much as 95 percent in the case of books, is commercially unavailable. . . In fact, we may not even know who holds the copyright. Companies have gone out of business. Records are incomplete or absent. . . These works—which are commercially unavailable and also have no identifiable copyright holder—are called “orphan works.” . . . For example, scholars estimate that the majority of our film holdings are orphan works. For books, the estimates are similar.
Is it just me, or does anybody else find something wrong with this picture?
Now - the way I see it, we are at a crossroads. We can just stick with the laws we've got and declare a "war on piracy" which will probably have about the same effect as the "war on drugs", or we can try to figure out something more sensible.
Waddaya think?
[edited by: lawman at 11:19 pm (utc) on April 19, 2009]
[edit reason] Linked and Edited To Conform To TOS #10 [/edit]
There's no inherent justification for people to be able to use your work for free just because you don't like that it's unavailable, or that it won't be available for a set period of time. it's my work, keep your hands off it. Trying to justify taking it is trying to justify stealing.
Want it? Pay for it. Can't pay for it because it's unavailable or you can't afford it? tough, it's not yours to have. Most of the arguments being put forth seem to boil down to 'but I waaaant your stuff, and should be able to haaaaave it for free'.
You want access to information for your personal use, go get a library card.
A self published piece of junk from 50 years ago, today is nothing more than a self published piece of junk that's best left buried. that's what most of the orphaned works are. Junk.
The really important works don't become orphaned works. They remain in print and are available. And after the copyright expires, if it's important, someone will pick it up and republish it. Don't believe me? Go search your favorite online marketplace for the book of black bass - been in print for centuries. Or pretty much anything by Charles Babbage. Still in print, available in paperback for a few bucks
For stuff that's old, not in print, publishers mostly have a standard process for providing you access to that information. As in, they actually have processes in place, if your request is reasonable they'll likely give you access to it. Need to republish a page from technical journal from 50 years ago as part of a new work? You can probably get permission.
the only people having problems with current copyright laws are those that seem to think they have some sort of right to other's works, for free. That's all this is, is prettying up the justification for taking that.
[edited by: wheel at 10:42 pm (utc) on April 19, 2009]
You want access to information for your personal use, go get a library card.
If copyright law accurately reflected your views in the proceeding paragraphs there wouldn't be any libraries.
Watch the DMCA's fly in record #s and the courts clog up if/when this ill conceived boondoggle becomes law.
If copyright law accurately reflected your views in the proceeding paragraphs there wouldn't be any libraries.
copyright laws do reflect my views in the previous posts. Unless you had a point that you didn't bother to actually post.
Not as regards libraries they don't, was my point. If you write a book and I buy it you can't stop me lending it to people. As I understand it, you would consider that piracy without your explicit consent.
@ Everyone thinking this is a victory:
Did you ever record a song off the radio as a kid on to a cassette. I know I did.
Well, that was copyright infringement, and just as much of a copyright theft as is downloading a song.
So, would you have supported them shutting down companies that produce cassettes? I mean, they were no more of a means of infringing copyright back then, then pirate bay is now.
The ones who infringe copyright on pirate bay are the users, not the pirate bay. You could be sharing legal stuff on there. The fact that it is mostly illegal work that is shares is more a reflection on the current state of things, rather than on the company itself. Remember, just cause it is called pirate doesn't make it any more of a pirate than does a user called wheel mean that the user is a wheel.
And in my long argument before, I never said stealing was ok, just that... aren't there better things for the governments of the world to be doing?
Pirate Bay doesn't host any of the content. They are just a file sharing company.
The name of the site gives a 100% clue to the intent of the site.
It would be similar to a gun maker calling his company "Wife Stopper" and trying to claim innocence when their weapons were "the weapon of choice" used to stop wives :)
So OK, prior to 1970 - 1970, OK? - there was virtually no way for the average person to commit copyright infringement in any significant way.
- Casettes were introduces in the early 70s AFAIK, so they would be too young
- 8 track tapes (have been bottlegged)
- reel-to-reel tape recorders
- ...
It existed, and recording was relatively easy.
