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."
@all
If you're interested at all in eBooks there's a relevant article in today's Wall Street Journal online.
Partly quoted and edited here, by me:
"With books becoming part of this universe" (meaning, regular Internet content)... "booklogs will prosper, with readers taking inspiring or infuriating passages out of books and commenting on them in public. Google will begin indexing and ranking individual pages and paragraphs from books based on the online chatter about them. You'll read a puzzling passage from a novel and then instantly browse through dozens of comments from readers around the world..."
Well, under current copyright laws, the author of the article, Steven Johnson, is living in a fantasy land. Because with the copyright term being so long, most of twentieth-century culture is still under copyright and, as I brought up in a previous post, 95% of it is unavailable. No one is reprinting the books, screening the films, or playing the songs. Because no one is allowed to.
I want incrediBill's content to NOT get ripped off. I want my content to NOT get ripped off. But I also want "orphan" works - works that have been abandoned - freed up in the same way that an abandoned home in a community is taken over by the local jurisdiction as a matter of good public policy. If a work is no longer being exploited, there is no reason for the state-sponsored monopoly to continue.
Is this too much to ask?
But I also want "orphan" works - works that have been abandoned - freed up in the same way that an abandoned home in a community is taken over by the local jurisdiction as a matter of good public policy.
Hmm, a lovely idealogical vision of orphan works. Likely though that the legislation around 'orphans' will encourage the deliberate poaching of others works.
"Honest Guv, I really did spend 36 hours trying to trace the owner of those works..."
No one 'abandons' their copyrights (well, I'm sure there are one or two exceptions). In many cases it's likely that the owner will just be unknown; it won't be that they have forsaken their creative offspring.
Interesting - relative to the Pirate Bay issue - that Mozilla still has a Firefox add-on available for them. Curious though, don't you think, such tools are available through such channels in the first place.
Even more interesting - have just been reading some fascinating content on the PirateBay.org site that is incredibly telling when it comes to revealing the attitude and intent of the site's creators.
You'll find this content directly accessible from the home page: just click on the link to 'Legal Threats'.
Oh dear - did they really tell lawyers for Dreamworks to do THAT?
Syzygy
[edited by: Syzygy at 7:59 pm (utc) on April 20, 2009]
hey, their ancestors were vikings after all ;)
I'm waiting for the next round, after all, especially with new technologies, lower ranking courts have proven to be somewhat unpredictable. there's a proverb in german which roughly translates to "in court and out on sea you're in god's hand". the judges did mention the good search function. maybe the next judge has used google before and can compare the quality of the search functions ;)
The concerns over orphaned works are quite frankly, overblown (and are nothing more than a screen for illegal file sharing).
Few works are actually orphaned. 20 minutes and a few phone calls will get you to the copyright holder in most cases. There are really very few orphaned works. The last thing it is, is some sort of black hole of cultural work, that's for sure. It's not like 30% of the books published in the 1900's are orphaned works or anything like that. I bet you'd have a hard time actually finding a 'true' orphaned work.
20 minutes and a phone call or two will get you the current copyright holder of just about anything from the 1900's. And for anything non-current, just about all of those copyright holders (current publishers, widows of authors) are overjoyed at the idea of someone having reasonable access to their work.
The remaining true orphaned works are substantially made up of self published 10-copy runs of no redeeming value. Uncle Bob printed 10 copies of his memoirs which have faded into obscurity. Big deal.
Can you just rip and copy arbitrarily? No. Can you reuse in reasonable fashion? In my experience, yes, pleasantly, easily and for free.
Likely though that the legislation around 'orphans' will encourage the deliberate poaching of others works.
Further, twisting words to support your own personal druthers isn't going to help the situation.
Right now, no-one can abandon their copyright because the law says you have it for a specified term no matter what. What you abandon is the copyrighted work by ceasing to actively distribute it. And, in many cases, the owners of the copyright no longer exist as a legal entity capable of having a copyright on anything.
If you're not actively distributing it, or especially if you no longer exist, guv, why should the rest of society give you a monopoly on the thing?
Oh dear - did they really tell lawyers for Dreamworks to do THAT?
No, seriously, it's funny to use four-letter words in an email to a big corporation, but any sympathy I had for them disappeared reading their correspondence with Indiana Gregg, an independent artist who basically begged them to stop. Pirate bay responded with mockery.
It was obvious from that correspondence, that the people at Pirate Bay have zero respect for the actual artists whose work they are ripping off, and that they have nothing but contempt for artists.
Wrong. On all counts. I've got more than one or two exceptions on my desk right now. Let me give you some examples of ways that copyrights are abandoned.
People die. That, after all, is the definition of "orphan". Either there are no heirs (e.g., the famous golden-age SciFi author H. Beam Piper, some of whose works are still in print!), or the heirs simply aren't aware of the presence of copyrights, or the heirs don't know how to record their ownership of the copyrights (because, generally speaking, there ISN'T a copyright registry anymore), or the copyright was in a life+n+years country, and nobody knows when the author died (i.e. the translater Marie Mackie), or the copyright was in a country where the citizenship of the author mattered, and nobody knew whether he was naturalized as an immigrant. These are examples that I have run into, recently, in the course of my own work. So much, I trust, for books.
The Library of Congress was particularly concerned about the preservation of early movies, on cellulose film that is rapidly degrading and will be totally unreproduceable before the material is out of copyright. Their commercial value is low, but the cultural value is high. The magnetic tape used 40 years ago to record TV shows is at a similar point of decay. Many people would be willing to spend money and time to preserve this material (for noncommercial reasons)--if they could avoid the hassle of dealing with ambulance-chasing lawyers and distribution monopolists' hired goons. So much, I trust, for recorded media.
>20 minutes and a phone call or two will get you the current copyright holder of just about anything from the 1900's.
Please, therefore, provide me with the copyright status and owner of each of these books. Two hours, tops. I'll be happy to (1) give you thanks here, credit on such of them as can be publicly posted as a result of your phone call, and pay the long-distance phone bills.
J. Rossie Brown, Murrayfield Psalms
Foy Vinson, Commentary on Romans
Haraszti, Enigma of the Bay Psalm Book
Prunieres, tr. Mackie, Monteverdi: His life and work
de Landa, tr. Gates, Yucatan before and after the Conquest.
Thornber and Bonker, The Fantastic Clan
the argument seems to be hypothesis: "I want to rip the content but I can't, so I should be allowed to".
Corallary #1: Also, because I can't rip someone else's content for my personal pleasure or gain, I should also be allowed to download movies for free.
Not a whole lot from these folks about protecting the creators of the work. In fact that's a great big elephant in the room that you folks seem happy to ignore. And if not ignore, then steamroll over.
OK, I earn based on security of my content, not it's "freedom", it never gets old going round and round with scrapers about copyright.
I thought better of you incrediBILL than to be making unfounded accusations. I thought we could have a heated debate without it degrading into name calling... especially by a mod.
I am not a scraper, if you ever read my posts, you would know that.
I never even said I was against copyright. I just said that the current state of copyright legality is not a reasonable model and trying to keep it alive isn't the most pressing issue world governments should be worrying about. I never even touched copyright law surrounding text... only music.
Did you know that if you have a party at your house, and you play a CD you bought legally; you are still breaking copyright law?
If you buy a CD, play it in your car and the sound is heard by people outside your car, then you are breaking copyright law?
Do you think this is reasonable? Have you broken copyright law in the aforementioned manner?
Also, have you ever gone to the library to get a book or movie and enjoyed it free of charge? How did the book/movie owner earn anything from that, except the original purchase of the book? According to the people that agree with the decision, if libraries exist, then no one will make movies or write books... after all, you can get them for free.
I’m not saying everything should be free… just that the current copyright model isn’t the only/best way to monetize intellectual property.
In any case, I'm sure that the decision will be appealed successfully.
de Landa, tr. Gates, Yucatan before and after the Conquest.
That one is for sale on Amazon ... "Only 4 left in stock--order soon (more on the way)."
Start by contacting the present publishing house.
If you buy a CD, play it in your car and the sound is heard by people outside your car, then you are breaking copyright law?
That's a deliberately extreme, unreasonable interpretation of Copyright law that neither courts nor copyright holders would ever agree with, nor would they pursue. Is there a single instance of someone being taken to court for copyright infringement for this? Were Pirate Bay a group of unsuspecting music lovers who accidentally wound down their window when stopped at traffic lights as they were playing a CD?
In any case, I'm sure that the decision will be appealed successfully.
I hope you're wrong.
That's a deliberately extreme, unreasonable interpretation of Copyright law that neither courts nor copyright holders would ever agree with, nor would they pursue.
No, I don't know of a case where such extreme laws were enforced. But even though it hasn't happened, based on the way current laws have been enacted, it could happen.
If you defend copyright laws as being just fine and needing no modification, then you are defending such extreme interpretations, as this has been basically outlined.
I hope you're wrong.
That is great, because I believe in freedom, therefore you have all the right to disagree with me.
I just don't think that my position is 'morally superior' than others. I try not to take that stance, since when I look back in history, the ones who believe 'moral superiority' have had generally flawed reasoning (I'm not saying that is the case with you, just with some from both sides of the argument).
So, you want to be saved from your own habitually infringing self, eh?
I know it's wrong and I shouldn't, but if it's so easy to get free things I'm going to. Most people are going to and currently do.
I can't see how anyone here can honestly defend a site that openly provides easy access to music that is copyrighted. I don't care if you think the music industry is corrupt or if you just enjoy downloading files and never want it to end, we all know deep down it's wrong.
That's a deliberately extreme, unreasonable interpretation of Copyright law that neither courts nor copyright holders would ever agree with, nor would they pursue.
Oh of course, just because it is the law doesn't mean anyone would try to enforce it. Nothing remotely similar [arstechnica.com] has ever happened.
Forget "making available" some songs on a P2P network—in the UK, blaring your radio too loud might make you a target for a multi-hundred-thousand-pound lawsuit for copyright infringement. The UK-based Performing Rights Society—a group that collects royalties for publishers, songwriters, and composers—has accused a car repair chain named Kwik-Fit of copyright infringement because mechanics were regularly found to play their radios loud enough for others to overhear the music.
I think, and I'm happy to be corrected, that you can play a CD at a party, as long as you haven't charged anyone to be there, and there is no commercial intent (so you are not pitching for business). Then its a private gethering, not a public one.
Re: Orphaned works. Could you not have a some legal entity (any given National Library for eg) be responsible for declaring works as Orphaned, and assume Copyright for said works (on the basis they would grant use on a reasonable basis). If you could not trace the Copyright owner, you would need to apply to have the works declared orphaned, with due dilligence being required by declaring entity, and legal liability assumed if they get it wrong.
I really fail to see how Orphaned works has any baring on chart downloads. Are you suggesting you can't trace the Copyright owner of Leona Lewis or Coldplay tracks?
Prunieres, tr. Mackie, Monteverdi: His life and work
Published by J.M Dent & Sons, London. Now an imprint of Orion Publishing Group.
Source: Wikipedia [en.wikipedia.org]
Agreed - Orphan Works are not part of the mainstream of this thread. However, may I just point out that a couple of years ago I attended a conference in which one of the UK's top copyright/IP lawyers spoke specifically about their fears about the downside to Orphan Works legislation and stated that (checks notes) it is "...dangerous legislation eroding the rights of rights owners."
Syzygy
The Enigma of the Bay Psalm Book
by Zoltán Haraszti. 148 pgs.
Contributors:
Zoltán Haraszti
Publisher:
University of Chicago Press
Place of Publication:
Chicago
Publication Year:
1956
Subjects: Bible--O.T--Psalms--English--Paraphrases--Bay Psalm Book
I was a history student, not a very diligent one but a few attitudes rubbed off. Having read books that were written 1500 years ago I know that in some cases there are missing volumes that, if ever found, would probably change our understanding of entire centuries.
Even early twentieth century history is never going to get that bad, but I think when it comes to the early movies that are degrading as we speak it shouldn't be dismissed.
That is an important time, the birth of film, in both American and world history. For literally hundreds and thousands of years people are going to want access to those films to study, and not just the ones that today's market decides are commercially valuable.
To allow them to perish, simply because of legal issues, is something that will be remembered and cursed for generations.
Stated in obverse THEY DID NOT CREATE ANY OF THE CONTENT which they knowingly passed through their systems. It is the KNOWINGLY part that needs to be addressed,
The entire point is that they did not pass it through their systems at all.
Intend is indeed normally a big part of the law or at least the courts.
Concentrate on the PROBLEM of how to monetize the internet and offer SOLUTIONS
It's the industry that pushes people into breaking the law.
Then the industry want to enforce the law beyond reason.
It's much like the prohibition in the US: the laws will chance when the public at large refuses to accept the consequences any longer. Will it be better? Who knows, but unless the industry adopts their customer needs fast, they are a high speed train heading for a concrete wall.
It doesn't matter if you're in this for or against the industry, for or against the law is it currently is. The way the current law is currently used by the industry means we'll see far worse before it gets better. How many Al Capones will we need before the politicians put this on their agenda and start to ignore the lobbying of the industry?
I am not a scraper, if you ever read my posts, you would know that.
That was a generalization as I get attacked by scrapers all the time, not a directed comment, sorry if it ruffled your feathers as it was unintended.
[edited by: incrediBILL at 2:43 pm (utc) on April 21, 2009]
I'd be happy, given some evidence, to defer to your expertise. I have only done a few thousand copyright searches, the vast majority of them trivial (and some of the remainder unsuccessful), and the number of searches I've done _professionally_ could be counted on the fingers of one hand.
These are _typical_ cases chosen from my recent work, proof that all the situations I described above do occur. Anyone with actual experience in the field would know that, and could easily give examples from their own experience.
>your isolated cases of books you're looking to rip for probably commercial gain....
Careful, that sounds like bad logic: I wouldn't need to know the owner in order to steal the book. I'd also suggest, that, in a context where your credibility has been challenged, it would be prudent not to make accusations that anyone can check with a Google search. (My name is on all my online work.)
But for the purposes of this discussion, motivations really don't matter. It doesn't matter whether the "value" of the book is commercial, or spiritual, or cultural, or recreational. What matters is that the distribution of these books is potentially prevented (and thus, with all the work put into them, NOBODY can profit--not the audience, not the author, not the original publisher, and not a new publisher. How can that be a good thing?
Also, have you ever gone to the library to get a book or movie and enjoyed it free of charge? How did the book/movie owner earn anything from that, except the original purchase of the book?
The United States used to HAVE such a registrar. We called it the, um, "Library of Congress." It didn't infringe, at all, in any way, let alone any "dangerous" way, on the rights of authors. It had the obligation, and the ability, to conserve works protected by copyright. And ... its ability to provide these useful (I would say "essential") services was deliberately sabotaged by the Berne Treaty.
One of the significant Pirate Bay questions was: is the provider of a generic duplication service responsible to prevent any possible misuse?
The media monopolists want the answer to be "yes", despite the many dimensions of absurdity that answer would entail.
ONE of those dimensions is the question of orphan works: how can the service provider KNOW what's legal, if NOBODY can know the copyright status of the copied material?
So YOU say.
The Library of Congress claims (but what would THEY know?) that under the U.S. copyright system, 4 out of 5 works were not renewed...that is, after 28 years the copyright holder either couldn't find HIMSELF, or was not concerned enough about the copyright to fill out the paperwork to keep track of it.
That's a LOT of potential for orphanages.
Under the current (EU-centric) regime, the same proportions are still there ... but now, nobody KNOWS which 80% of works are orphaned -- and nobody at all--not the author, not the publisher, not the public--can get any kind of benefit -- commercial, recreational, cultural, whatever -- from them.
Eighty percent of all the creative work done on the planet.
That's hardly an insignificant problem.
The importance of that number in any discussion of hi-tech distributed distribution channels (peer-to-peer networking) is this: For all those creative works, the creation is done and paid for. There need be no further costs associated with it. Distribution through the old-style monopolies is far too expensive to be commercially viable. But ... high-tech distribution is dirt-cheap. Commerce doesn't have to be involved at all, the low costs and limited interest means that a single person, not a rich person, but an ordinary working stiff, can easily donate to the entire world, as a gift, distribution for such a work, with no NEED to pay for the unconscionably-expensive overhead of outrageously-overpaid stuffed-suits and legal-sharks and PR-flacks and enforcement-goons and so on and so on and so on.
True value, to society, is excess of value over cost. ("Commercial" value, is LOCALIZED excess of value over cost.) By drastically reducing cost, PTP frees up enormous value to society, that was formerly locked away because too expensive to extract. Value that was formerly too diffuse to be commercially exploitable, is now noncommercially exploitable.
That's why it's important to resist the monopolists' attacks on ANY kind of peer-to-peer. And if we have to choose between peer-to-peer (the electronic version of Freedom of the Press) and the entire music industry (or the entire entertainment industry) as a business model -- I'd see the business model turned into a dungheap, in a heartbeat.
1) The argument that they were "acting like google" is nonsense.
Suppose that, instead of download links, a company were to host paedophilia links - is there anyone here that would argue that would/should be legal and should be permitted? I sincerely hope not.
2) The owners of PirateBay understood full well that they were facilitating lawbreaking. They may hold the opinion that the laws are unjust, but that is irrelevant. Perhaps, they did not understand that they were breaking the law, but if they had considered point 1 above, they would probably have worked it out.
I chose the example to encourage clarity of thought in people who seem confused. I do no consider "copyright theft" to be as serious as child abuse.
Kaled.
Syzygy
Personally I'm quite able to get through my life and my business just fine without feeling the need to justify my using someone else's work.
If you read the trhead, you'll see that we start with people stealing movies and music online, then move the discussion over to orphaned works. Lots of content on the horror of someone dying without an estate and leaving some important piece of work that they can't give permission for someone else to scrape.
And out of the 12 pages of the thread, does anyone else notice a distinct lack of *real* reasons why it's so important that people are allowed to take someone else's copywritten work? No? Talk about all the orhpaned works, cultural preservation, movies going bad, how hard it is to find the owner, ANYTHING but a list of why the rest of the world would care or even have a need for this. And that of course, is because there isn't any good reason for needing copyright changes for just about all of us. It's either an excuse to download music or an exercise in academic mast urbation.
The laws are actually in place for a reason - to stop people from doing what a lot of people seem to want to do. And as far as I'm concerned, they're working admirably.
Copyright might need looking at, for academic reasons.
Copyright seems ROCK SOLID for commercial reasons.
It seems to be a disingenuous argument to say "orphaned works and deteriorating film shows copyright has flaws. Thus, copyright should be thrown out, and I should be able to download music"
Talk about babies and bathwater.
