Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Mar 2010 16:58 UTC
Legal We have some very, very good news for Europeans (which happens to include myself): we have the European Parliament on our sides when it comes to battling ACTA. If you may recall, ACTA is basically an attempt by the US to impose upon the rest of the world draconian measures like three strikes laws and the DMCA. All parties within the European Parliament have together put forth a resolution that would effectively tackle ACTA.
Thread beginning with comment 412965
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
danieldk
Member since:
2005-11-18

That amounts to legalized piracy.


Except that it is not. In recent times it has always been legal in The Netherlands to, say, borrow a CD in the library (or books for that matter), and making a copy for your own enjoyment. As long as it is for personal non-profit use. To compensate artists, there is a levy on blank media, such as CD-Rs and DVD-Rs. A minister of justice has decided that the situation for downloading is the same. Citizens have already paid for this fair-use right via levies.

Even if you do not have a levy system, downloading should be no criminal offense. Copying is not theft, since there no physical object is being stolen. Making a copy is nearly free. Additionally, research in our country has shown that frequent music downloaders are also people who buy music more frequently.

Why the system as it is set up in many countries is wrong can be shown easily. Suppose that I can spend only 50 Euros of my monthly income in music, and I do so. Now, suppose that I also download 500 Euros worth of material monthly. Is 500 Euros the real damage? No, if I stuck to the law, I'd still have spent the same amount of money on music. If I do not obey the law, downloading 500 Euros worth of music does not cost the industry anything. The 50 + 500 situation is clearly more beneficial for society, and should be aimed for.

The entertainment system is broken and old, and kept in tact by draconian laws. It is time to shoot down those laws (including the DMCA, EUCD, and ACTA), and leverage the real potential of the internet - infrastructure that can bring an enormous of culture to every citizen, and gives artists (and not the industry) the opportunity to earn money.

You're clearly for laws that favor pirates over content producers.


Sure, pirates and artists. Not big media. They should reinvent themselves, or disappear with other archaic 20th century business models and technology. The world is far better of without them.

Edited 2010-03-09 22:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Copying is not theft, since there no physical object is being stolen.


Theft is not defined by whether or not something physical was stolen. It's taking something that is not yours without permission. There are plenty of services that can be stolen without a physical object ever taken.


Making a copy is nearly free.


That is why copyright laws exist. For certain types of work all the cost is in the production while the duplication costs nothing. Intellectual property laws recognize this and create a market for these products.


Additionally, research in our country has shown that frequent music downloaders are also people who buy music more frequently.


That type of study could only be done by polling the pirates, which makes the whole thing incredibly stupid.
Maybe CEOs should be polled and asked if they are greedy or not. I would also bet 10:1 that this so-called study was performed by a social scientist, or soft scientist as my friend calls them.

People pirate because they don't want to pay. You can't get around that basic fact. If piracy is socially acceptable and there is no strong legal threat then the majority will do it.


The entertainment system is broken and old, and kept in tact by draconian laws. It is time to shoot down those laws (including the DMCA, EUCD, and ACTA), and leverage the real potential of the internet - infrastructure that can bring an enormous of culture to every citizen, and gives artists (and not the industry) the opportunity to earn money.


Artists are already free to sell their music in any way they see fit. You would just be robbing them of options by eliminating copyright. If fact you would rob the incomes of hundreds of thousands of small artists that make their money by selling their music on itunes and other digital music providers. Providers like Apple would just sell their music as part of a monthly service without compensating them.

Reply Parent Score: 1

danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

Theft is not defined by whether or not something physical was stolen. It's taking something that is not yours without permission.


Well, except that nothing is really taken. It is just duplicated. And if someone couldn't afford it anyway, there is also no loss of income.

There are plenty of services that can be stolen


Most services can not be copied without cost.

I would also bet 10:1 that this so-called study was performed by a social scientist, or soft scientist as my friend calls them.


Of course. If a study does not agree with you, it must be stupid or wrong. Have you considered the possibility that it may actually be true?

People pirate because they don't want to pay. You can't get around that basic fact.


Total nonsense. According to your definition I pirate (except that downloading is legal in our country, and I am not looting ships). I spend a substantial amount of my income on copyrighted material. E.g., last month I bought:

- Aperture 3 (upgrade, 100 Euro)
- ~25 Euro worth of movie rentals
- At least 40 Euro on Blu-Ray disks
- Books

No new music this month. I download, because I cannot spend more than 200 Euro per month on copyrighted material. This applies to many people I know as well, they download where the budget is not enough.

Of course, there are also a lot of people who do not spend much on copyrighted material. But there are also hell of a lot of people who do not have any money at all to spend. Do you want to keep them away from culture>

If fact you would rob the incomes of hundreds of thousands of small artists that make their money by selling their music on itunes and other digital music providers. Providers like Apple would just sell their music as part of a monthly service without compensating them.


Except that some of my favorite artists (hi NoMeansNo and Fugazi!) do not mind or encourage downloading. The end result: a lot of people end up liking their material, want to support it, and buy the albums anyway.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Theft is not defined by whether or not something physical was stolen


Actually, that's exactly how theft is legally defined, no matter how much some lobbyists would want to make you think otherwise. Copyright infringement is not theft and copyright deals with *distribution* of content. Downloading is not distribution, uploading is.

People pirate because they don't want to pay.


No, professional pirates pirate because they want to make money. Or to paraphrase Peter Jackson: I dont care if you copy your neighbors DVD, I care if you make a profit from copying my movies.

That type of study could only be done by polling the pirates, which makes the whole thing incredibly stupid.

I would also bet 10:1 that this so-called study was performed by a social scientist, or soft scientist as my friend calls them.


You are confusing your, and your friends, opinion with facts.

oh, and I hope you never made a tape copy of any of your friends LP or CD when you was a kid. That's piracy you know and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Also, tapes killed the recording industry as we all know.

Edited 2010-03-10 15:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3