|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
moosehead
Joined: 05 May 2007
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 5:36 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Copyright reform is desparately needed in America. Big industry suing individuals for massive amounts for downloading their films is ludicrious. One should only be able to sue for damages if one can prove that an individual received some sort of financial benefit for the distribution of the media in question. This would mean one could sue a website which distributed films illegally (since it's distribution of them draws people in, which in turn allows it to make money off of advertisements), but one could not sue some family that incidentally downloaded a movie or song, even if they then passed it along to their friends.
One cannot prove that a person downloading something harmed a company in any way. I've downloaded thousands of songs, books, and movies that I would have never even considered purchasing. Copyright should be the exclusive right to profit from distribution with regards to the object of the copyright, nothing more. No profit should equate to no infringement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brento1138
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
|
| Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, that was one damn expensive movie. $150,000! 
I suppose some people will have their lives practically ruined because of this. Imagine a father who makes around $35,000 U.S.D per year trying to pay off that $150,000.
Incredible... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Theft is theft.
Illegal downloading of someone else's copyrighted material is a crime.
The amount of the theft is the value or purchase price of the item stolen. The prosecution, both criminal and civil, should reflect this value.
Honest people don't download other people's property. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Theft is theft.
Illegal downloading of someone else's copyrighted material is a crime.
The amount of the theft is the value or purchase price of the item stolen. The prosecution, both criminal and civil, should reflect this value.
Honest people don't download other people's property. |
Well, copyright infringement, while certainly a crime, is not exactly the same as theft. crossmr informed me of that last year when I said almost the same thing you did.
| Quote: |
Comparison to theft
Further information: Dowling v. United States (1985)
Copyright infringement is often equated with theft, for instance in the title of the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997, but differs in certain respects.
Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not (for the purpose of the case) constitute stolen property, and writing:
interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'an infringer of the copyright.' ...
The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
�Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217�218
The key distinction generally drawn, as indicated above, is that while copyright infringement may (or may not) cause economic loss to the copyright holder, as theft does, it does not appropriate a physical object, nor deprive the copyright holder of the use of the copyright. That information can be replicated without destroying an original is an old observation,[53] and a cornerstone of intellectual property law. In economic terms, information is not a rival good; this has led some to argue that it is very different in character, and that laws for physical property and intellectual property should be very different.[54]
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moosehead
Joined: 05 May 2007
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yeah, personally, no one yet has ever been able to explain to me how file sharing is the same thing as theft -
I share books all the time w/friends; copy a music cd of something I think they might like, or even make a custom music cd of various songs as a special gift - no one is beating down my door accusing me of various crimes because it's personal use. so why is it now that the technology allows me to share with a stranger, or vice versa, all of a sudden this is a criminal act?
seems like legislatures and law enforcement have their priorities screwed up - when oil exects can rape and pillage mother earth then reap the profits - but I can't download a film or two (or three).
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| moosehead wrote: |
so why is it now that the technology allows me to share with a stranger, or vice versa, all of a sudden this is a criminal act?
|
Corporate lobbying and corporate P.R activity. That's what it ultimately amounts to. Corporations have won an overwhelming victory on this issue; they've persuaded the public that configuring your computer in a certain way is theft (despite the fact that no one has lost anything they previously possessed), and they've managed to get the law written in favor of that opinion. Hell, they've even got anti-governmental loonies like ontheway convinced (I'm surprised he doesn't realize that the government telling you you cannot configure your computer a certain way constitutes, by his definition of the word, socialism), probably through their intentionally erroneous use of the word "property." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I know some 'anti-gov't loony types,' aka libertarians, who don't believe there should be copyright laws at all.
I'd settle for a relaxation of copyright penalties, and a reform of the current laws. But in the meantime, follow the law and don't d/l movies. The principle is reasonable: if you consume someone's work, you must pay something, and as the producer of the work, they should get to set the price. If you don't agree to the price, don't view or d/l at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ropebreezy
Joined: 27 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
$150,000? Is that how much a DVD of The Hurt Locker costs? 
I agree with Fox, copyright law should be changed in that manner. I foresee a future where newly released movies will be available only in theaters (as usual), to which very eager people can shell out the $10 to see it on a big screen in surround sound. After a certain length of time the movie itself is released digitally (for free) through the production company's website, which the production company itself will get enormous revenues from all the internet traffic it will receive. And of course any website found releasing the movie from it's own website is liable for copyright infringement, under the new definition.
The same model can be applied for music. The music itself is released only from the artist's/record label's website, and perhaps only after the artist has performed the song in concerts/played it on the radio/etc. to generate interest. Any website caught releasing the music illegally is found liable. And of course the artist/record label itself still receives revenues from concerts and the plethora of other non-digital events.
A similar thing is happening in the video gaming world. Games are increasingly being released via Steam and other content delivery systems, and people are paying for them. Of course there's piracy, but the large majority of people are still paying for games through these systems because they want to play online and stay interacted with their friends. Being socially interactive is almost a must for any video game to be successful in this day of age. I think eventually video game companies are going to find themselves in the same boat as the music and movie industry and will have to (eventually) see themselves as not making a game, but making a social experience. They will have to introduce their game through some socially-palatable content delivery system and include features that introduces the best interactive options with other people as possible (multiplayer, voice communication, video, whatever). Being more of a social game rather than just a game has been the philosophy for today's most successful game companies such as Valve and Blizzard.
All these ideas hinge on the fact that the wonderful opportunities that the Internet and digital age has brought to art and other business is not something that is owned by anyone. A company doesn't get to conveniently release their product digitally and then at the same time whine when that product is shared. Sharing is the entire point of the Internet. If you don't want people to share your product than don't go digital. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| I know some 'anti-gov't loony types,' aka libertarians, who don't believe there should be copyright laws at all. |
Yes, that was needlessly offensive of me. Anyway, my point was rather to emphasize how effectively this concept has been sold to us, such that even people who would generally be philosophically against things like copyright laws are supporting them here.
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| I'd settle for a relaxation of copyright penalties, and a reform of the current laws. But in the meantime, follow the law and don't d/l movies. The principle is reasonable: if you consume someone's work, you must pay something, and as the producer of the work, they should get to set the price. If you don't agree to the price, don't view or d/l at all. |
I actually disagree with the principle in question. No one is entitled to compensation for their labor as a result of any valid ethical principle I'm aware of; the value you get is the value you can persuade people to pay. So long as they aren't depriving you of something you previously had, they aren't actually stealing from you either. As a result, I can see no ethical violation in downloading.
If you don't want your product viewed by people without receiving compensation, it's incumbent upon you to design a property distribution format which will ensure those ends are met. I certainly can see a case for saying others cannot profit from your intellectual property, but to say others can't even look at it without your permission is just madness; like the war on drugs, the war on copyright infringement does nothing but criminalize common citizens while benefitting a tiny, powerful subsection of the populace. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ropebreezy wrote: |
| A similar thing is happening in the video gaming world. Games are increasingly being released via Steam and other content delivery systems, and people are paying for them. Of course there's piracy, but the large majority of people are still paying for games through these systems because they want to play online and stay interacted with their friends. |
Exactly! This is the real way this matter should be handled. Instead of enforcing arbitrary laws which falsely construe software download as theft, corporations should be innovating to find ways to make customers want to pay them. Steam (and Stardock, to list another example) provide convenience and positive benefit, so people are willing to pay for them, despite pirating being an option. I have no problem with pirating at all; it doesn't even ding my quite sensitive ethical sensibilities. None the less, I am a happy customer of Stardock, because they provide me with good service. I also strongly approve of their philosophy with regards to copy protection; software I get from them is going to be built with my convenience in mind, not in an attempt to keep it safe from pirates.
People are willing to go to the movie theater despite being able to download movies for free because it's a nice experience. People are willing to go to concerts instead of downloading music for free because it's a nice experience. Even purchasing DVDs and CDs can be encouraged via proper incentivization. This is what we should be expecting from our corporations: encouragement to purchase, not draconian threats if we don't. If you produce music in a digital format, you don't have a right to compensation for it, even if I listen to it. If you incentivize me to purchase it, though, I may well do just that. That's what the intellectual property business should be about, not suing people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ropebreezy wrote: |
| $150,000? Is that how much a DVD of The Hurt Locker costs? |
| brento wrote: |
Imagine a father who makes around $35,000 U.S.D per year trying to pay off that $150,000. |
Or $1,500 to settle the case.
More info from the Hollywood Reporter and even more info. Here's the complaint.
Here's Chapter 5 of the U.S. Copyright Code. There's a choice between actual damages or statutory damages.
| Quote: |
504(c) Statutory Damages. �
(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.
(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. |
Of course, we all know about the statutory damages under Federal law, we've been seeing the six-figure amount on that blue screen preceding films since we were young.
Its worth noting that they were using BitTorrent. Torrent works on the premise that as you download the movie, you upload it to make it available to others. Its quite viral, and those of us who avoid using BitTorrent have done so for good reason: we don't want to get sued for copyright infringement.
Its doubtful the court will award full $150,000 damages for each and every defendant. And if it does so, it will be incumbent upon the Hurt Locker showing how much it cost to make the film, and how much the infringement cut into their profits. Remember that it was leaked in DVD quality, so those who cut the BitTorrents could then put them on CDs and distribute them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AsiaESLbound
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Location: Truck Stop Missouri
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| And the lambs are being herded into the slaughter house for the final kill on their financial identity. I knew this was coming so I never downloaded back home, but used Netflix and Red Box instead. It's not about what's right and wrong, it's about law groups using any information to parse whatever money they can tap out of the market of low paid disenfranchised Americans. If it were about right and wrong, movie downloading internet traffic wouldn't be allowed. If anything, the ISP's need to be sued for allowing it since the movie industry is so concerned. There is a huge difference between web surfing, watching Youtube, using Skype, and just about anything else vs. downloading a huge torrent file. A server could be programmed to not allow torrents to pass through it. America is about setting up the little guys for failure and then going straight for a 25% wage garnishment and the draining of any bank balances they hold up to a lawsuits judgment amount. Don't download movies if your ISP has your name and social security number. I don't worry about it in Korea. In Korea, who's offering media sales and service catering to Westerners? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
If you don't want your product viewed by people without receiving compensation, it's incumbent upon you to design a property distribution format which will ensure those ends are met.
I certainly can see a case for saying others cannot profit from your intellectual property, but to say others can't even look at it without your permission is just madness; like the war on drugs, the war on copyright infringement does nothing but criminalize common citizens while benefitting a tiny, powerful subsection of the populace. |
This is exactly why Libertarians want to repeal copyright laws and use the free market to protect intellectual property.
Since we have a subsidized and monopolized socialist system of protecting property rights in intellectual property, people are left with no option but to employ this system. There is little hope of creating a market system in the face of a monopoly system with a price set near zero. It's almost the same as trying to create free market money. If you try that in the US you will be quickly jailed. And of course, the creaters of songs, books, movies, computer programs, etc. have to use this monopoly system just as people have to drive on the terrible socialist monopoly highway system.
It is, however, quite easy to create a free market system that makes all the participants aware and obligated to protect the intellectual property rights of the creators of such. There are also numerous books available, if hard to locate, on this topic. However, the government rules, regulations, subsidies and restrictions have to be repealed - socialism has to be repealed - and we have to allow the free market to operate.
People who do not want to pay for the music they listen to or the books they read, and who then steal the material without paying the writer or author are thieves.
If you download one song and do not pay, you have stolen the purchase price of that song from the owners. Now, sure, if could be the heirs of Michael Jackson's Beatles library that you are robbing, but it could be some poor artist who only wrote one decent song and the freeloaders and pirates are taking bread from his mouth.
The court can call it what they want - it's stil theft.
But, this is another problem that could be better handled in a free market without the socialist copyright laws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
It is, however, quite easy to create a free market system that makes all the participants aware and obligated to protect the intellectual property rights of the creators of such. There are also numerous books available, if hard to locate, on this topic. However, the government rules, regulations, subsidies and restrictions have to be repealed - socialism has to be repealed - and we have to allow the free market to operate.
|
I agree that creators of intellectual property should have the exclusive rights to their work, including getting paid each time someone acquires it and uses it.
I also agree that the penalties for infringing on those rights are way out of whack.
However, I am not really sure how the Libertarian approach to the free market will help. You mention that there are books on the subject. Can you just boil it down for me? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
