Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 4th Oct 2011 13:31 UTC
Legal A few days ago, several countries signed ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. As you are probably aware, ACTA was drafted up in secret, and is basically Obama/Biden's attempt to impose the US' draconian pro-big business/big content protection laws on the rest of the world ('sign it, or else'). The European Parliament still has to vote on it, and as such, Douwe Korff, professor of international law at the London Metropolitan University, and Ian Brown senior research fellow at the University of Oxford, performed a 90-page study, with a harsh conclusion: ACTA violates fundamental human rights.
Thread beginning with comment 492146
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
jabbotts
Member since:
2007-09-06


So all the movies, music, audio books, et al, showing up on the interwebs is just "fair-use" right not "theft"?


Maybe read what I wrote not what you wanted to hear.

A quick note on "theft"
- when copying content deprives the source of that content, we can call it theft. Best of luck with that one though unless one can change the physics of digital duplication.

- when it's proven that one infringement is indeed equal to one lost sale, we can call it theft. Best of luck with that though as one infringement has yet to ever equate directly to one lost sale; the majority of people will actually happily pay to license good content and those who wouldn't where never going to in the first place even long before digital duplication became possible.

Now, back to your accusation:

Please point to precisely where I said any such thing. Heck, point to anywhere that I suggested it was ok to infringe copyright by downloading unlicensed content or distributing it to unlicensed recipients. What, someone mentions "fair use" and it could only possibly be for the purpose of trying to promote infringement?

Now that you mention it though, if one has a legally purchased DVD representing a license for the content contained within, what exactly is the issue with downloading that content in a more usable format from another content license holder who has done a better job of converting it? Heck, if the source does not have a license for the content it's still not an issue for the recipient if they do have a license.

Now, this is the part where one normally points to those digital copies that some DVD/Blueray bundles now include. Try using that DRM crippled digital copy outside of a Windows/osX machine. One is still limited to cracking DRM or downloading a usable copy of the content and guess which method free market forces have chosen.

Just to be clear, I do agree with legal action against massive distributors of infringing content especially when that distribution is honest to goodness counterfeit product sold for profit. I don't agree with attacking someone who have a copy of a CD or a few songs to a friend as mix tapes and small scale sharing have always been a part of the market and have done far more to promote content sales. Smart companies would call this free marketing.


Last I checked the RIAA wasn't going after people that burned their movies/music/for use in the comfort of their own home...unless one lives in a bit torrent site.


Yeah, they had to stop threatening individuals over fair use since the 2010 federal court decision that fair use was indeed except from the DMCA. How long has the law been on the books now?

You'll forgive me if I put more stock in the word of content creators rather than the parasitic corporations that feed on them though.


I may be one of very few people in this room who actually makes his living personally by creating what these gentlemen are pleased to call "intellectual property."



The head of Universal Music France talked about just how much money was necessary to nurture new talent. Didn't Barlow understand economics?

"If you're spending $5 billion on new artists, we're not getting our money's worth," Barlow cracked, and he reframed his argument in economic terms of scarcity and abundance.

"Trying to optimize towards scarcity, as you are by all of your methods, is not going to be in the benefit of creation, I promise you," he said. "It's not IP enforcement that gets you guys properly paid." In his view, payment comes from building a product that people actually want to buy - and the movie industry's repeated record box office takes in recent years show that people have no problem coughing up the cash for something of value.


G8's a bitch when you have someone who someone business savvy who also makes there living off created content.

here's a bit more


"Some of Canada's best known musicians, including Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlin, Sum 41, and Barenaked Ladies, have formed a new copyright coalition. The artists say in a press release that they oppose file sharing lawsuits, the use of DRM, and DMCA-style legislation and that they want record labels to stop claiming that they represent their views."

http://slashdot.org/story/06/04/27/0015239/canadian-music-stars-fig...

Seems the content creators feel differently than the megacorp claiming to act on there behalf:

http://drm.info/node/40

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/spyware/artists-revolt-against-drm/726

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2005/12/16/more_artists_t...

http://www.copyleft-music.com/2005/12/17/artists-against-drm/

Being aware of corporate motivations and critical of resulting behavior does not equate to promoting copyright infringement. So please stop this facade about the poor starving RIAA executives.

Reply Parent Score: 4