Boycotting: RIAA and MPAA.

[Dude_Doc]

On April 24th through April 30th 2005, many of us who values the technology of P2P networks will boycott the Motion Picture Assosciation of America and Recording Industry Assosciation of America.

We are tired of them accusing us for "stealing" their products and money. They've showed us their real faces: huge corporate owners who don't care about new ideas or the future - who would rather see the world deterioate into junk, who would rather spit on all those who died in the Asian tsunamis than even considering helpig them - they think the internet is the great satan of some kind.

Yes, we all are aware that the internet can bring both good and evil - but so can everything else. Religion can be used to help people, but can also be used to wage "justifiable" wars. Laser can be used in dangerous weapons, but can also be used in medicine. And so on.

If they win, internet will become restricted. More and more corporations will keep on buying, keep all ordinary people paying huge sums - in short, they will restrict free information. Free information leads to democracy and freedom.

It's very easy: just don't buy their products and don't watch their movies.

[Andrew]

Well Piracy is stealing, but it is the music and film industries fault for lagging many years behind with the times.

MP3s became popular in the mid nineties?

They started to offer music online legally in 2001/2002? Kinda late.

And I couldnt' figure out why I would spend $500 on 18 CDs just to get the right songs onto one CD legally. Or I could spend $5 and make a CD I like, with songs I like. They really screwed themselves over.

The film industry is a bit more tricky though.

[Caid Ivik]

Theft is an act, when you take a valuable thing from its owner, thus making him loss of it. However, when you copy something, his loss is none; only loss of potential market may be caused, tough this is absurd because I would have no idea to buy something, if I didn't considered it worth it. By such logic, anybody who did not bought their product, could be making them losses. They somehow want to declare ownership over not the product itself, but its very essence, no matter what form is its form - informatic or traditional, partial or as whole. Once they will attack fan reviews and debates about ie movies, that they are "stealing".

[HasimirFenring]

I have this argument quite often with my friends who use P2P networks.... Here goes...

In the same way that an author deserves compensation for a book he or she writes, musicians and actors, as well as the massive associated crews, need to make a living.  I don't argue with the point that the RIAA is particular brought some of this on itself with near price-gouging, but disagreeing with a business model is no justification for theft.  When you download copyrighted materials without paying for them, that is in fact an act of theft by a legal definition.  The argument along the lines of "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so it's not like they're losing revenue" doesn't hold up when you look at the declining sales in both record and home video categories.

Go ahead.  Flame me.  I dare you (not really).

[Andrew]

Oh, and the movie people are stealing when they play ads at the beginning of a movie. They didn't do that before. I'm paying for a movie not an ad. I get a thousand ads a day thrown in my face. Don't need another.

Now it takes 20 minutes to get to the feature presentation. And the skits where they get some guy who "works" on movies talking about how piracy is bad and how he is out of a job is kinda funny. Maybe if they didn't pay their star actors 20 million dollars they could afford other stuff. Ahem NHL hockey, where only rich people and corporations get lots of tickets. Used to be any one could go.

And it is funny how every single DVD that comes out now is an unrated, directors cut, special edition, collectors edition, limited edition DVD. What happened to those special DVD's actually meaning something? Like how I think of my directors cut Frank Herbert's Dune miniseries DVD. ;D

All Teen movies get the unrated version. Oooooooooo.

Those corporate guys sure are funny. ;)

They are telling us what we want.

[HasimirFenring]

Those corporate guys sure are funny. ;)

They are telling us what we want.

Sure, but you don't have to listen.

Oh, and the movie people are stealing when they play ads at the beginning of a movie. They didn't do that before. I'm paying for a movie not an ad. I get a thousand ads a day thrown in my face. Don't need another.

If it really bothers you that much, arrive late.  People willing to sit through that nonsense (or able to ignore it) will get the better seats.  It's a trade off.

Now it takes 20 minutes to get to the feature presentation. And the skits where they get some guy who "works" on movies talking about how piracy is bad and how he is out of a job is kinda funny. Maybe if they didn't pay their star actors 20 million dollars they could afford other stuff.

About the guys talking, I also find it kinda funny, mostly because of the way it bothers my P2P-user friends.  I repeat: just becuase you don't like an industry's standard business model is no justification for theft.

[Caid Ivik]

Problem is that you have no idea what is a theft. These people use ancient thinking which doesn't fit into the age of informatics. Either they have to try to take control over the net, or try to avoid it.

[HasimirFenring]

Problem is that you have no idea what is a theft. These people use ancient thinking which doesn't fit into the age of informatics. Either they have to try to take control over the net, or try to avoid it.

What is theft then?  It is clearly theft if I drive off in someone's car without permission.  Is it theft if I steal an author's manuscript and publish it under my own name without consent or compensation?  Is it theft if I buy a copy of an author's book, get out my printing press, make a million copies and distribute them for free?  Those acts are different only in that the culprits are more easily captured.

[DukeLeto]

What is theft then? It is clearly theft if I drive off in someone's car without permission. Is it theft if I steal an author's manuscript and publish it under my own name without consent or compensation?

Yes, that is indeed theft, because you are taking credit for something you didn't do.

Is it theft if I buy a copy of an author's book, get out my printing press, make a million copies and distribute them for free?

There, however, I argue no.  The key phrase here is that you bought the book.

Howver, we aren't talkign about books here, anyways.  We're talking about record labels and "music artists".  These people have millions upon millions of dollars already.  These people do not need that kind of moeny.  It isn't really hurting them at all if a few hundred people that probably wouldn't have bought their CDs anyways download a song or two off of Altavista.  Jeez.

And perhaps you missed the recent big lawsuit against the RIAA where it was found out that they were price gouging?  Big corporations and ultra-wealthy stars, price gouging?  [sarcasm]Well, that never happens...[/sarcasm]

[Caid Ivik]

But again, Hasimir: when you steal a car, there is no car left in original owner's property. Here original owner still owns the product. Informatic value is different from a material one, and spiritual value (ie art) should be also measured by specific norms. When you copy a spiritual product, its plagiatorship, not a theft. Same here we need a new definition.

[HasimirFenring]

There, however, I argue no.  The key phrase here is that you bought the book.

*I* bought the book, and therefore I as an individual have the right to read it and, as an individual, lend it to *a* friend to read.  If I give out copies to multiple other people, thereby saving them the need to buy it, that is illegal.  To be fair, theft may not be quite the correct word here.  But, to extend this to P2P networks, if one of the people who received copies I illegally produced decided that my distribution was too limited and decided to produce and distribute another million copies, that is the theft of intellectual property

Howver, we aren't talkign about books here, anyways. We're talking about record labels and "music artists". These people have millions upon millions of dollars already. These people do not need that kind of moeny. It isn't really hurting them at all if a few hundred people that probably wouldn't have bought their CDs anyways download a song or two off of Altavista. Jeez.

First of all, "a few hundred"???  Bull.

So the fact that the artists (or authors; they can get rich too you know) are rich changes the law?  Your arguments here are a bit moralistic.  Law applies equally to rich and poor; Bill Gates being rich doesn't make Windows freeware.  Not only are not all musicians wealthy, but the money you pay for a CD goes to people other than wealthy artists and record industry executives.  Many people work in that industry, producing everything from the cover art to sound editing to software.

And perhaps you missed the recent big lawsuit against the RIAA where it was found out that they were price gouging? Big corporations and ultra-wealthy stars, price gouging? [sarcasm]Well, that never happens...[/sarcasm]

Look, I don't like the industry any more than you do (well, apparently a little more), but downloading copyrighted material is illegal.  It fits the legal definition of theft; it is not a victimless crime, as it may appear due to its nature.  Corporations and wealthy artists as well as less wealthy artists and individual laborers are all hurt by internet piracy.

[HasimirFenring]

Sorry for double post, just saw Caid's post

But again, Hasimir: when you steal a car, there is no car left in original owner's property. Here original owner still owns the product. Informatic value is different from a material one, and spiritual value (ie art) should be also measured by specific norms. When you copy a spiritual product, its plagiatorship, not a theft. Same here we need a new definition.

Dictionary definition: an unlawful taking of property.

You are taking property, and the courts agree that it is unlawful.  True, the old legal definitions need to be updated to modern information age problems, but that doesn't mean that copyrighted material should be 'shared' with impunity.  Lawmakers need to address this problem, but action needs to be taken by law enforcement in the mean time.  Theft seems to fit best.

[Dude_Doc]

Well Piracy is stealing, but it is the music and film industries fault for lagging many years behind with the times.

As I said, it could be used both for good and bad. But P2P'rs don't steal anything. They download it and they want to know what it is. Then, of course, there are those who burn the product and sell it to other people for their own profit.

I don't argue with the point that the RIAA is particular brought some of this on itself with near price-gouging, but disagreeing with a business model is no justification for theft.

When one person doesn't agree to something - then that may be understandable. But when millions of people don't, then there is something wrong with the business model itself.

They've had their golden age. They wanted to stop us recording our favourite TV shows from our own houses, to copy. Would you call that theft? Basically yes, except that in the TV-case, you'd have to wait until whatever you want comes on the TV, while on the P2P networks you can get it instantly.

When you download copyrighted materials without paying for them, that is in fact an act of theft by a legal definition.

But it is justifiable that we should pay $10 for something we don't know nothing about, and later find out that we didn't like it at all?

The argument along the lines of "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so it's not like they're losing revenue" doesn't hold up when you look at the declining sales in both record and home video categories.

They are still making profit and they have enough money to live their lives as they wish. The only reason they go out and sue all these kids is because they think they don't get enough money.

Oh, and the movie people are stealing when they play ads at the beginning of a movie. They didn't do that before. I'm paying for a movie not an ad. I get a thousand ads a day thrown in my face. Don't need another.

Exactly. The problem is becoming much clearer now. The problem is not "the law", it's implicated in the whole system itself. The huge corporations brainwash us everyday with ads, naked men and women - trying to idealize the society to be like Brad Pitt or Britney Spears - trying to make us consume as much as possible. They've been doing this for over 100 years! P2P has been around for less than 10, and they're trying everything within their power to cruch any resistance to their precious money-making system.

Sure, but you don't have to listen.

Do we have any other options?

If it really bothers you that much, arrive late.  People willing to sit through that nonsense (or able to ignore it) will get the better seats.  It's a trade off.

Fine - but can we ignore every commercial? Step outside your door and there you have it - a commercial.

About the guys talking, I also find it kinda funny, mostly because of the way it bothers my P2P-user friends.  I repeat: just becuase you don't like an industry's standard business model is no justification for theft.

A business standard model - yes. The tiny minority dictating to you what to follow and what to buy. I'm sure you would like this deal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INDUCE_Act

In short words, if it gets through - it could mean no more tape-recording of your favourite programs. So much for the "land of the free".

[Caid Ivik]

Hasimir, by that definition, even taking photos of somebody or somebody's property would be a theft. You don't take the thing "an sich", but only a perceptable sign of it. It's like when you don't hold a law-enforced secret (ie like in army), altough the damage is much lesser in case of P2P, as it is only in potential sphere.

[HasimirFenring]

"When one person doesn't agree to something - then that may be understandable. But when millions of people don't, then there is something wrong with the business model itself."

Millions of people favored slavery and then segregation in the United States.  That means nothing.

"But it is justifiable that we should pay $10 for something we don't know nothing about, and later find out that we didn't like it at all?"

Well gosh, you can return it; there are sample clips on Amazon and other sites legally; perhaps you are farmiliar with an artist; many music stores let you listen to a cd on store headphones before you buy it.  It isn't that difficult.

"They are still making profit and they have enough money to live their lives as they wish. The only reason they go out and sue all these kids is because they think they don't get enough money."

Becuase you think their profit margins are still sufficient still doesn't affect the law on the subject.  I don't like the lawsuits any more than you do, but the industry has a limited number of options on how to deal with this.  Suits may seem like the fastest one.

"Exactly. The problem is becoming much clearer now. The problem is not "the law", it's implicated in the whole system itself. The huge corporations brainwash us everyday with ads, naked men and women - trying to idealize the society to be like Brad Pitt or Britney Spears - trying to make us consume as much as possible. They've been doing this for over 100 years! P2P has been around for less than 10, and they're trying everything within their power to cruch any resistance to their precious money-making system."

"Do we have any other options?"

"Fine - but can we ignore every commercial? Step outside your door and there you have it - a commercial."

First of all, on an unrelated note, companies have NOT been doing this for over 100 years.  Modern marketing started in the 1920s.  Prior to that, advertising was more...tasteful and sparse.

*Sigh*  You don't HAVE to do what commercials say; granted, you can't really not see them, but Britney Spears endorsing Pepsi doesn't force you to do anything.  I don't like clutter, suggestive or obscene advertising either, but that is a matter for public decency laws, not copyright laws.

"A business standard model - yes. The tiny minority dictating to you what to follow and what to buy. I'm sure you would like this deal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INDUCE_Act

In short words, if it gets through - it could mean no more tape-recording of your favourite programs. So much for the "land of the free"."

That sort of legislation is very worrying, and seems to be part of a growing trend of people no longer valuing their freedoms as much in America.  Still, copying TV is different.  If I obtained a commercial-free copy of next week's Simpsons episode and distributed it for free, the airtime would be worth less money.  THAT is the equivalent of downloading copyrighted music.

EDIT: just saw Caid's post again.

Hasimir, by that definition, even taking photos of somebody or somebody's property would be a theft. You don't take the thing "an sich", but only a perceptable sign of it. It's like when you don't hold a law-enforced secret (ie like in army), altough the damage is much lesser in case of P2P, as it is only in potential sphere.

P2P networks have damaged music and movie revenue.  If you do not pay for a piece of copyrighted music, then it does not belong to you.  When you take something that belongs to someone else (the person/group holding the copyright) and recieve the benefits of their labor without compensating them, I define that as theft.

[Caid Ivik]

Why do they publicly produce things like high-speed modems, burners or tape recorders? It's a silent legalization  ;D

[nemafakei]

I doubt I've bought many CDs they made. I've not bought many CDs full stop. And I don't watch many films at all.

"a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based

upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to

the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its

commercial viability."

That looks like it means you have to be very intentionally aiding piracy to me.

Incidentally, the assumption of ownership with regard to data is something which must be questioned. The author should have ownership, yes, but in what sense exactly?

[HasimirFenring]

Why do they publicly produce things like high-speed modems, burners or tape recorders? It's a silent legalization  ;D

That's the most absurd thing anyone has said yet (I assume it was a joke).  There are countless legal uses for high-speed modems.

[Dude_Doc]

*I* bought the book, and therefore I as an individual have the right to read it and, as an individual, lend it to *a* friend to read.

And that isn't plagiating? When a friend of yours borrow your book, the author loose money on your friend because then he doesn't have to buy it.

And imagine how many cases there are. Imagine if one million people bought the book, and each of these one million have 5 friends each, who each borrow the book and read it. There you have lost 5 million times the price of the book.

If I give out copies to multiple other people, thereby saving them the need to buy it, that is illegal.

No, because you're basically lending them the book, just as the example above. It is, however, their choice to buy the book or not. That's a risk included in almost everything.

And let us say that there are a product, on video, that no one can find anywhere because it didn't go very well - you can't buy it simply. And let us say this was 5 years ago. Who are making profit if you copy and distribute it?

Who are making a profit on, say, Super Mario Bros the movie, if you can't buy it anywhere? And even if you did find it, chances are that it is already owned by another person who want to sell it to you. Seems like nobody is making a profit here.

But, to extend this to P2P networks, if one of the people who received copies I illegally produced decided that my distribution was too limited and decided to produce and distribute another million copies, that is the theft of intellectual property

Yes, if he himself gets all the money for it.

Law applies equally to rich and poor; Bill Gates being rich doesn't make Windows freeware.

Which was the whole point. What, exactly, would Bill Gates loose if Windows 95 was downloaded and used freely?

Not only are not all musicians wealthy, but the money you pay for a CD goes to people other than wealthy artists and record industry executives.

Yes, but the lot goes to those who have the "rights" to the work - i.e. the bosses, those who already are rich. What do you think the technic or sound editor gets? They sure aren't much talk about those.

Many people work in that industry, producing everything from the cover art to sound editing to software.

Which is also a reason for them to despise the information age. They don't like it that you no more have to buy the physical CD.

It fits the legal definition of theft; it is not a victimless crime, as it may appear due to its nature.  Corporations and wealthy artists as well as less wealthy artists and individual laborers are all hurt by internet piracy.

It really hurts trying to make a better world, doesn't it. This is one of the weak spots of today's system of wealth and power of the tiny minority.

Lawmakers need to address this problem, but action needs to be taken by law enforcement in the mean time.  Theft seems to fit best.

They won't because the huge corporations won't let them. Just like the days when people were accused of being Communists and homosexuals.

[Edric O]

For once, me and Caid are actually on the same side! :)

Information is what economists call a public good. A public good is a good that has the following properties:

1. It is non-rivalrous, meaning that its benefits do not exhibit scarcity from an individual point of view; once it has been produced, each person can benefit from it without diminishing anyone else's enjoyment. Software is non-rivalrous because, once it has been developed, it can be copied an infinite number of times virtually for free.

2. It is non-excludable, meaning that once it has been created, it is impossible to prevent people from gaining access to the good. If you can read data, you can copy it. Not even the most sophisticated methods of copy protection can avoid this simple law. Copyright (aka "intellectual property") is an artificial attempt to make information excludable.

Information is, essentially, the same as light. It would be useful to compare an .mp3 file with a Christmas tree decorated with beautiful lights, placed in a public square. Copyright means forcing people to wear blindfolds when they go through the public square and asking them to pay if they want to remove the blindfolds and look at the Christmas lights - because otherwise they'd be "stealing light".

[Edric O]

If you do not pay for a piece of copyrighted music, then it does not belong to you.

Do you pay for public lights? Do you pay for clean air? These are public goods, just like information. What would you say if a law was passed that forced you to pay for clean air, in order to support an air-cleaning industry?

When you take something that belongs to someone else (the person/group holding the copyright)...

Ah, but you don't actually take anything when you copy an .mp3 file. You don't deprive anyone of anything.

Like Caid said, theft is when you deprive someone of his or her property. If you steal a car, you deprive the original owner of his car. But if you could make an exact copy of the car for free, without any negative consequences for the original car or its owner, would that be theft?

[Dude_Doc]

Well gosh, you can return it; there are sample clips on Amazon and other sites legally; perhaps you are farmiliar with an artist; many music stores let you listen to a cd on store headphones before you buy it.  It isn't that difficult.

Then maybe P2P'rs are downloading before they buy the product?

I don't like the lawsuits any more than you do, but the industry has a limited number of options on how to deal with this.  Suits may seem like the fastest one.

They don't seem to care much, except for suing people. They're not adressing the problem correctly, they still think that we're living in the 19th century.

First of all, on an unrelated note, companies have NOT been doing this for over 100 years.  Modern marketing started in the 1920s.

Prior to that, advertising was more...tasteful and sparse.

Okay, 80 years.

You don't HAVE to do what commercials say; granted, you can't really not see them, but Britney Spears endorsing Pepsi doesn't force you to do anything.

But basically, you have, since there are no other options.

That sort of legislation is very worrying, and seems to be part of a growing trend of people no longer valuing their freedoms as much in America.

Yeah, I think we should keep on listening to the huge corporate masters and ignore this matter, I mean, they can't be wrong, can they?

If I obtained a commercial-free copy of next week's Simpsons episode and distributed it for free, the airtime would be worth less money.  THAT is the equivalent of downloading copyrighted music.

I'm not talking about recieving the next episode, but the one that just aired. You've watched it and recorded it, and you don't have to buy the whole season. Therefore, you can lend it to anybody who missed the episode, and they can copy it, and so on.

P2P networks have damaged music and movie revenue.

It was damaging, yes. But people still buy CDs and movie DVDs.

When you take something that belongs to someone else (the person/group holding the copyright) and recieve the benefits of their labor without compensating them, I define that as theft.

Yes, when you sell it. But all P2P'rs don't. And because of today's fast connections to the net, there is no need for people to buy from other people (who don't hold the copyright).

Incidentally, the assumption of ownership with regard to data is something which must be questioned. The author should have ownership, yes, but in what sense exactly?

I believe that it should be up to the author to decide wheter he wants his product to be shared or not, not some assosciation which haven't done a bit of work in the product.

[HasimirFenring]

"And that isn't plagiating? When a friend of yours borrow your book, the author loose money on your friend because then he doesn't have to buy it."

No, becuase you have ONE copy, which can be read by ONE person at a time.  Not at all the same as distributing it to a massive audience SIMULTANEIOUSLY.

"Then maybe P2P'rs are downloading before they buy the product?"

HAHAHAH good one.

"But basically, you have, since there are no other options."

Huh?  You don't have to drink pop at all; I don't.

"Yes, when you sell it. But all P2P'rs don't. And because of today's fast connections to the net, there is no need for people to buy from other people (who don't hold the copyright)."

Giving it away can be WORSE than selling it.  No business model can compete with free, hence the terrible lawsuits.

"I believe that it should be up to the author to decide wheter he wants his product to be shared or not, not some assosciation which haven't done a bit of work in the product."

It is, when you think about it for a moment.  An artist isn't forced to go through the RIAA.  If I had any musical talent, I could record something and put it up on P2P networks today.  The RIAA couldn't do anything about it.

[HasimirFenring]

Do you pay for public lights? Do you pay for clean air? These are public goods, just like information. What would you say if a law was passed that forced you to pay for clean air, in order to support an air-cleaning industry?

Ah, but you don't actually take anything when you copy an .mp3 file. You don't deprive anyone of anything.

Like Caid said, theft is when you deprive someone of his or her property. If you steal a car, you deprive the original owner of his car. But if you could make an exact copy of the car for free, without any negative consequences for the original car or its owner, would that be theft?

I don't expect my argument to mean anything to you, Edric; you are depriving the artists and laborers (as well as the filthy capitalists) of revenue, but to a communist that wouldn't really matter (don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Marx, just much more moderate than you).

As to your comparison with air, that is nonsense.  No artist (except nature/god, if you want to be difficult about it) created that; clean air is part of the world around us, something to be protected by the government for the common good.  Music is created by an individual or group who, in most cases, wish to profit from their labor.

On a totally unrelated note, this reminds me of something really funny written on the board of my math classroom a few years ago:

"Pirating music spreads communism!" ;D

EDIT: just rereading this thread, and it's looking like it belongs in PRP...  Which might be partially my fault.

[Dude_Doc]

No, becuase you have ONE copy, which can be read by ONE person at a time.  Not at all the same as distributing it to a massive audience SIMULTANEIOUSLY.

But, technically, they would loose money.

Giving it away can be WORSE than selling it.  No business model can compete with free, hence the terrible lawsuits.

No, because you're not making any damage to the owner - in a sence of profiting over his work. Would you rather choose that someone sold your work and made a profit on it, or that people see it without anyone making a profit?

It is, when you think about it for a moment.  An artist isn't forced to go through the RIAA.  If I had any musical talent, I could record something and put it up on P2P networks today.  The RIAA couldn't do anything about it.

Of course it would be great if artists actually used it this way - they sell their work directly to those who will listen to it. Unfortunately (for the artist), he wouldn't be very rich, because the networks doesn't reach everyone.

As to your comparison with air, that is nonsense.  No artist (except nature/god, if you want to be difficult about it) created that; clean air is part of the world around us, something to be protected by the government for the common good.

I think he meant the internet itself, information itself. Music files is, in essence, information.

On a totally unrelated note, this reminds me of something really funny written on the board of my math classroom a few years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA        (The poster.)

And I suppose this person started working for RIAA? ;)