News Radical New Copyright Law

[willy88]

http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE49C7EI20081013

"Let's suppose that there's one computer in the house, and one person uses it for downloads and one for homework. The whole computer goes,"

That's a very chilling statement. It looks like the US is slowly devolving into a police state. :dry:

How do these things even get through? :huh:

 

[James.Denholm]

That's horrible!

But they have to catch you first

 

[Artlav]

Not particularily surprising - systematic disregard of laws of physics is characteristic in the USA.

Hopefully legislature singularity will clear it out soon.

 

[Urwumpe]

I think sometimes, it is time for a RIAA tea party....

 

[AstroCam]

*groan*, don't you just love it when they call downloading moives/etc. piracy? It isn't. We COPY the material, we don't sell it to someone else.

Like what was it? the way they calculate the amount of money lost due to 'piracy' every year works out to $80US per illegal disc? That's pathetic.

Anyway, I'm a great believer in download if you need it. As long as you don't sell other peoples work without permission, where's the harm in that?

Also, if you look at it, how many computer games have any of you bought over the years, then found out they were incapable of working on your hardware, and/or have poor gameplay.

Most of the money they earn is from erroneous purchases - Its really sad, but legal
'Try before you buy' seems to be dead. And that's were torrenting, downloading and sharing comes in. If you like what you've downloaded, buy it legally later. It's as simple as that.

Sorry for rambling on the Orbiter forums about 'piracy' but somethings really tick me off. Hyperinflated software prices are just one of my buttons.

And that's why i love Orbiter. It's free, and it's great. What more could you ask for?

EDIT: Thank God I'm in Australia. At least the distance provides a buffer between me and the insanity of US copyright laws

 

[Urwumpe]

Primarily, it is the problem that people think, they can own something like intellectual property. But that is an illusion. There is no such thing as a intellectual property, you can easily claim.

The record companies work that way: They claim the intellectual property of the artists, and declare, they shall be the only people able to copy it on another medium.

Of course, anybody with some talent can listen to a song and play it himself quickly. Is that copying? According to the music industry only as long as you don't do it in public. Is that logical? No. The whole problem started, when the music was no longer needed to be played life. Then anybody was able to listen to music, at anyplace.

 

[GregBurch]

For all practical purposes, I don't know anything about intellectual property law. I thought about it a little ten years ago or so, but other things became greater priorities for me. So I'm wide open to be educated.

A question for those who think that the very notion of intellectual property is offensive: Why would someone pay a software developer to create a new application if they can't recoup the cost and make a profit through the use of IP rights?

 

[Artlav]

Why would someone pay a software developer to create a new application if they can't recoup the cost and make a profit through the use of IP rights?

If someone needs that piece of software, and no such software exists.
If something must be made that is not yet made.

 

[Urwumpe]

Also, the software prices are also one such example how you IP does not really work out. You often pay lots of money for the right to install the software on 3 places and no more than basic support. Which is of course a good reason to not pay for the software at all. Commercial Software is not more than some sort of professional black mail in my eyes, as somebody who wants to do software development professionally. I give the customer something together with artificial limits and receive money from him for removing the limits.

But actually, the people pay in their eyes for something different, as you sell him, and that is the problem. You sell a service, not a product. And the customer thinks, he buys a product, as you advertise it as product, while it really is a service.

 

[Kyle]

Typical Bush. This is some-what unfortunate.

 

[GregBurch]

If someone needs that piece of software, and no such software exists.
If something must be made that is not yet made.

What if the utility of the software is such that it isn't worth the cost of developing it to a single person, but it would be worth it to aggregate the demand from lots of potential users?

In other words, it will cost millions of dollars to develop a piece of software that is worth only a few hundred dollars to any one individual. The only way to support the expense of developing the software is to be able to sell it to lots of users. But if the software can be freely copied, then the person who pays for its development can't recoup her costs, much less make a profit.

This seems like such a simple and obvious question that I know I must be missing something, since those who oppose the existence of IP are so passionate. There must be something i'm missing at a very basic level.

Also, the software prices are also one such example how you IP does not really work out. You often pay lots of money for the right to install the software on 3 places and no more than basic support. Which is of course a good reason to not pay for the software at all. Commercial Software is not more than some sort of professional black mail in my eyes, as somebody who wants to do software development professionally. I give the customer something together with artificial limits and receive money from him for removing the limits.

But actually, the people pay in their eyes for something different, as you sell him, and that is the problem. You sell a service, not a product. And the customer thinks, he buys a product, as you advertise it as product, while it really is a service.

How is "removing the limits" different from delivering the key to the buyer of an automobile? I'm sure I must seem like a complete idiot for not getting this, since so many smart people treat this as such a simple problem.

 

[Kaito]

If they are going to crack down on ALL the pirate's, then half of the US would be arrested. Ever use Limewire? That's pirating.

Plus, they cant catch ALL of us, and it would be impractical to arrest EVERYONE who pirates.

This law is going to make pirating MORE popular. Its a general trend: everytime a new law is made to prevent something, it just happens more and more.

I cant wait for this new president to be elected...the only president i've known is bush, and i want a change

~Kaito

 

[Urwumpe]

How is "removing the limits" different from delivering the key to the buyer of an automobile? I'm sure I must seem like a complete idiot for not getting this, since so many smart people treat this as such a simple problem.

Does your car key keep you from creating a 1:1 copy of your car, if you would have the needed tools? Or prevent you from removing the lock?

Software protection works different in that context, as it is meant to keep you from using the software different as intended by the software producer.

The car analogy would be the car automatically stalling when you exceed 80 mph.

 

[GregBurch]

Does your car key keep you from creating a 1:1 copy of your car, if you would have the needed tools? Or prevent you from removing the lock?

Software protection works different in that context, as it is meant to keep you from using the software different as intended by the software producer.

The car analogy would be the car automatically stalling when you exceed 80 mph.

OK, well, yes, I see how the analogy to hardware breaks down (but it only begs the question of having IP in the design of hardware -- so we're back to where we started).

I fear I may be too stupid to understand this. Maybe I can try another analogy:

I'm a film director. I want to make the next big-budget special-effects-laden adventure-science-fiction-thriller with lots of famous actors in it. I have a great script, perfectly aimed at the heart of 13 year old boys, Hollywood's favored demographic. But the movie will cost $150 million to make. So I go to Evil Capitalist and ask for the money to make my movie.

"But 13 year old boys are notorious for their wonderful ability to copy digital material!" says Evil Capitalist. "The moment we release this on DVD, it will be copied and shared on that damned Internet thing."

What's my answer to Evil Capitalist?

 

[cjp]

EDIT: Thank God I'm in Australia. At least the distance provides a buffer between me and the insanity of US copyright laws

I heard you people in Australia now have this filter on the internet that censors out everything your government doen't like...

What if the utility of the software is such that it isn't worth the cost of developing it to a single person, but it would be worth it to aggregate the demand from lots of potential users?

Can you give an example of a kind of software that has been developed commercially but not non-commercially? I think the existence of free software in practically all fields of software development demonstrates that the "IP-model" is not necesary for a healthy amount of software development.
BTW, "free software" is not necessarily non-commercial, but it can not be based on an "IP-based" business model. So it still demonstrates my point.

This seems like such a simple and obvious question that I know I must be missing something, since those who oppose the existence of IP are so passionate. There must be something i'm missing at a very basic level.

I could write entire essays on this but for now I'm lazy and I just refer to the Free Software Foundation. They already have lots of reading material (although it's sometimes a bit extremistic).

How is "removing the limits" different from delivering the key to the buyer of an automobile? I'm sure I must seem like a complete idiot for not getting this, since so many smart people treat this as such a simple problem.

There is a very important difference. Property right of a physical object (like a car) is derived directly from physical limitations. When I take away your car, you can no longer drive it, so my action directly harms you. A car can only be useful to one person at a time(*), and we organize this privilege through property law.
Information, on the other hand, has no such physical limitations. As soon as it is available (**), it can become useful simultaneously to all people who have access to it. Therefore from an utilitarian POV, it is a bad thing to restrict the copying of information that could benefit large groups of people (***).

(*) Not counting the passengers of course
(**) It has to become available somehow of course. See my point on free software development.
(***) I'm talking about things like software, scientific discoveries, inventions and entertainment, not about things like privacy-sensitive peronal information.

 

[GregBurch]

I could write entire essays on this but for now I'm lazy and I just refer to the Free Software Foundation. They already have lots of reading material (although it's sometimes a bit extremistic).

I just skimmed through that site and found this link:

http://www.fsf.org/resources/

which seemed like the closest to a library of explanatory/theoretical material I could find. But it basically seemed to me to be all polemical material, i.e. propaganda (not a bad thing in itself, but essentially tools for the converted, rather than really attempts to calmly explain the concepts). This item:

http://www.fsf.org/resources/advocacy-materials/not_ipr.pdf

may be what you were thinking about as "extremistic" -- it seemed like the closest thing at that site to what a person like me who is looking for basic explanations might come across. It's very strongly worded, but makes what seems like one basic good point (that the term "intellectual property" masks the diverse historical and policy foundation for the three branches of what is called "IP," but then basically seemed to me to veer off into tossing rhetorical Molotov cocktails).

If anyone has a pointer to what someone with an honest interest in the basic concepts might look to for a solid grounding, I'd appreciate it.

Also, if anyone who has "crossed over" into a "post-IP" mind-set could use an example like making a movie to explain how a non-IP approach would work economically, I'd genuinely appreciate it.

 

[Moonwalker]

I'm a great believer in download if you need it. As long as you don't sell other peoples work without permission, where's the harm in that?

I'm also a great believer of downloading software as long as it is for free like Linux, OpenOffice, Orbiter of course and so on.

If we talk about payware, people have to buy the right, the licence, to use it (which doesn't mean you "own" the software really, the owner is the developer and publisher). If you don't do so you use this software illegally.

Imagine you are a developer and your existence depends on your job. You wouldn't be happy to lose your job. Also as a customer you wouldn't be happy about that kind of loss... http://www.phoenix-simulation.co.uk/

 

[Artlav]

There must be something i'm missing at a very basic level.

Simple example for that basic flaw:
Why do you make Orbiter add-ons?
Is someone paying you for that?

In case of a movie - think paintings.
The great artists of 19th and early 20th century didn't get paid for ever copy of their work sold, yet often made some nice living.

Commercial production makes result at any cost - the special effects are made by blowing brand-new cars, using supercomputers and often bloated licensed software, etc.

Artistic production tends to concentrate quality, since the resources are limited, so ways are found to make car explosions look real without paying millions for brand-new things, the software for the effects is made out of FSF resources and for specific purposes, making it run like an order of magnitude faster, removing the need for supercomputers, etc.

Increase of quality leads to decrease of the production price.
Decrease of production price leads to increase of profits, be it a DVD-stamping factory or movie theater revenue shares, or prizes money.

 

[GregBurch]

Simple example for that basic flaw:
Why do you make Orbiter add-ons?
Is someone paying you for that?

No. but of course, I'm not trying to make a living doing it, either -- and that actually raises a good point. I'd love to make 3d modeling and the kind of thing I do in Orbiter part of a "retirement career" -- but I can't conceive of how I'd make a living at it unless I had some kind of property right in the work I did, or at least some way to control it legally in some way. Again, this is probably because my mind is locked into some kind of outdated way of thinking, but if I was trying to make a living by doing work in a digital medium that could be freely copied, it seems like it could never rise above the level of a hobby.

In case of a movie - think paintings.
The great artists of 19th and early 20th century didn't get paid for ever copy of their work sold, yet often made some nice living.

Commercial production makes result at any cost - the special effects are made by blowing brand-new cars, using supercomputers and often bloated licensed software, etc.

Artistic production tends to concentrate quality, since the resources are limited, so ways are found to make car explosions look real without paying millions for brand-new things, the software for the effects is made out of FSF resources and for specific purposes, making it run like an order of magnitude faster, removing the need for supercomputers, etc.

Increase of quality leads to decrease of the production price.
Decrease of production price leads to increase of profits, be it a DVD-stamping factory or movie theater revenue shares, or prizes money.

With respect, these seem like factual assertions that would require actual evidence for their support. While it seems like some people have managed to make money with "free software" by providing a service for a fee in connection with the software, so far I haven't been able to see how a purely digital work of art or authorship could work this way.

Obviously, some musicians are dealing with this by shifting their economic model to be focused on making money through live performances, and treating the digital recordings of their work as a form of advertising. But an author of a literary work is unlikely to be able to do such a thing -- there's just not the same market for a live reading of a novel, for instance. And while you seem to dismiss the movie making with comments about CGI "bloatware," I don't find that convincing.

Of course, considering the deeply crappy quality of big-budget Hollywood films, maybe it's a good thing if they die. But there will be a lot of disappointed 13 year old boys out there ...

 

[Andy44]

If they are going to crack down on ALL the pirate's, then half of the US would be arrested. Ever use Limewire?

Nope. I don't pirate stuff, I don't own a single mp3 that I didn't pay for or download as a sample freely given away. (At least not yet, anyway, I'm no angel.) I don't understand why you think you are entitled to download stuff somebody else spent lots of time and money working on.

I agree that the record companies go too far when they say any copying is illegal, since when I grew up it was understood that as long as you weren't reselling it, copying records was fine, so you could listen to them on your tape player, etc.

In the current day, making exact copies of stuff has become so easy that the traditional legal framework concerning IP is no longer valid. But that's no excuse to throw out the entire idea of making sure people get paid for the work they do.

I cant wait for this new president to be elected...the only president i've known is bush, and i want a change

Because once Bush is gone it's going to be all milk and honey, right? Introduce yourself to reality, please.