Why online piracy isn't theft

[Aristophanes]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

No its not. That attitude is one that just about double-dog dares someone to sue you for copyright infringement, in which case you'll learn a very costly lesson about what 'public domain' really means.

Realistically the cost to enforce belittles the law. For every unauthorized use subject to legal remedy there are probably tens of millions not accounted for. We can berate people for immorality all we want, but it rarely works in real world economics. Pursuing legal remedy usually costs the publisher and rights holder far more than any fees they would receive. So, as a law, copyright has become majority unenforceable with digital media.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by Aristophanes

Realistically the cost to enforce belittles the law. For every unauthorized use subject to legal remedy there are probably tens of millions not accounted for. We can berate people for immorality all we want, but it rarely works in real world economics. Pursuing legal remedy usually costs the publisher and rights holder far more than any fees they would receive. So, as a law, copyright has become majority unenforceable with digital media.

I have a lawyer I've used for several years. She sends a threat letter and they've always paid without going to court. I only involve her after asking the infringer to pay, and having them refuse. Idiots. It would have cost them less if they'd just paid at the beginning because the lawyer tacks on a couple hundred extra in the threat letter to cover her fees. Haven't had to do it often, but it works and has never cost me anything. This is business. Having an attorney to deal with this kind of thing is just part of being in business.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by dbarnes

In exchanges here and elsewhere, I'm trying to listen and learn and be pragmatic.

There are many ways to justify taking what you want on the internet. The people who do it don't see their actions as theft. There's a reasonably coherent set of beliefs and values at work. Here's my I'm-quite-sure rather imperfect distillation of what I've heard expressed by sharers. I'm going to put words in a hypothetical someone's mouth. This is not me talking:

• For various reasons, music and movies etc are important to me. I'm not willing to do without them, or to experience delays in being able to participate in enjoying them.
• There's a ton of music and movies and other content out there, free for the taking.
• Because there's so much of it, and because it's so free, that content has ceased to have monetary value to me. Because it has no monetary value, the taking and sharing of it isn't wrong.
• I may be willing, now and then, when I'm able, to pay for goods related to the music and movies etc that I consume. And similarly for experiences such as concerts and conventions of fellow fans.
• The music and movies etc do have social value for me. Consuming them is part of an ongoing conversation on a local and global level. In the interest of furthering this conversation, I'm likely to share the music and movies etc that I enjoy.
• I recognize that Big Media Companies and others who copyright their content don't see the world the way I do. They keep calling me a thief, and as long as they do that, they prove that they don't understand me at all. I won't listen to people who keep insulting me. I don't see their arguments or the laws they bought back in the Industrial Age as threats to me or reasons to change my behavior. The odds of anyone meaningfully calling me out on my sharing behavior are about zero.
• I have time on my side. As more and more people see the world the way I do, there'll be more and more free content to enjoy and less and less chance of any kind of penalty.
• I've learned that many good things in life are, in fact, free. For example, entrepreneurs and big companies give away GREAT software and manage to make money on it. I don't see why music and movies etc should be any different.
• I'm alternately sorry for and amused by people who haven't learned to swim in the internet's ocean of free content. It's like they're living in a different universe!
• People who are stuck on copyrighting their work and threatening me with way-out-of-proportion penalties should chill and realize that I'm not their enemy. I *like* their stuff and tell people about it whenever I can. I add value to their work. In fact, I do content creators big favors every day.
• Music, especially, is like air. We all breathe the same atmosphere, and nobody pays to breathe.

The US government recently got the government of New Zealand to arrest a NZ citizen who ran a file sharing website and ship him to the USA for trial and prison. Non-Americans here take notice. Now THAT is wrong, in my opinion, because that man is not in my view a violator of US law, seeing how he is not a US citizen or a resident of the USA and has probably never set foot in the USA (prior to his being shipped here in chains). Wrong or not, though, he's in a jail cell.

[Al Patterson]

Originally Posted by wblynch

The Internet is Public Domain. You have donated your"work" to the Public Domain the moment you post it.

I am with Chris on this one. a perfect example of the problem.

And, I no longer post photos on the web, since it is full of thieves....

[Merkin]

All of this boils down to what we were all taught on the first day of Macroeconomics 101. The issue of online piracy is nothing but an issue of finding an equilibrium price on the supply and demand curves. The issue is that the supply of digital files is as near as makes no difference to infinite. That means that the equilibrium price, which we have nowhere near reached, is very low. How much would piracy be reduced at five cents a song, or even a penny? How about 50 cents to buy a digital copy of a movie, or 10 cents to rent a digital copy? I would wager that piracy would drop precipitously. At that price, the risk versus reward curve for pirating would make such actions untenable for most people. Artificially inflated prices are, imo, at the root of the piracy issue. However, the movie and record companies are doing their damnedest to fight the natural forces of economics through lawsuits, thuggery, and corruption.

It is also important, imo, to consider the difference between piracy for personal use and piracy for profit. If you post an image on a website, including this one, it is the digital equivalent of standing on a street corner and giving a print away to any random passerby who wants one. That person can set your image as their desktop background perhaps, or just stick it in a folder of images they like, or print it and hang it on their wall. You have absolutely no way of stopping someone from doing these things once you post an image on the internet. However, those things stop short of someone using your image for their personal profit. It is the use of other people's copyrighted material for profit that is/should be the concern, not personal use.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

The US government recently got the government of New Zealand to arrest a NZ citizen who ran a file sharing website and ship him to the USA for trial and prison. Non-Americans here take notice. Now THAT is wrong, in my opinion, because that man is not in my view a violator of US law, seeing how he is not a US citizen or a resident of the USA and has probably never set foot in the USA (prior to his being shipped here in chains). Wrong or not, though, he's in a jail cell.

No he is not,not in jail,not a citizen.He is on bail and is a resident. The rest is correct .Americans take notice also. Some of your tech companies have just been sued by Australian Government research company for using WIFI tech developed in Australia....

[huntjump]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

The US government recently got the government of New Zealand to arrest a NZ citizen who ran a file sharing website and ship him to the USA for trial and prison. Non-Americans here take notice. Now THAT is wrong, in my opinion, because that man is not in my view a violator of US law, seeing how he is not a US citizen or a resident of the USA and has probably never set foot in the USA (prior to his being shipped here in chains). Wrong or not, though, he's in a jail cell.

Actually Chris, it is completely RIGHT and pursuant to international law that New Zealand signed on to. It's known as the Berne Convention and signatories "recognize the copyright of works of authors from other signatory countries (known as members of the Berne Union) in the same way as it recognizes the copyright of its own nationals." He not having set foot in the US is not at issue, nor is the fact that he or she knew his or her host country signed this agreement. If the law was always forgiving for lack of knowledge, think about how easy that defense would be (and how often it would be invoked). Taking the Megaupload case example, hundreds of millions of dollars of US copyright infringement was being transacted through Megaupload, thus they had every right to extradite imo, and according to the international law NZ and many other countries have agreed by signing. And as stated above, it goes both ways in theory.

However, like much if not all international law, how binding these agreements are varies. China for example does not see this agreement as binding, though signed it (and we all know how much China respects copyright hah).

[btgc]

Just wondering when someone will licence walking, breathing or seeing. You still will be allowed this activities, just will have to pay for a funny named corporation.

"Only in December pay 25% less for a 5 year subscription to Walkr" !

[mfunnell]

Originally Posted by btgc

Just wondering when someone will licence walking, breathing or seeing. You still will be allowed this activities, just will have to pay for a funny named corporation.

"Only in December pay 25% less for a 5 year subscription to Walkr" !

You shouldn't post things like this! If "they" decide that the idea might actually be "thinkable" they'll start calculating how likely they are to get away with it. None of us might like the results of such calculations.

...Mike

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by btgc

Just wondering when someone will licence walking, breathing or seeing.

When somebody too naive to think that those things have been invented, and/or the patent office is too ignorant to grant a patent and/or trademark on either, some or all of those.

Driving, gun-carrying, law practice, and engineering are also some of the things that are licensed.

If anybody could do anything as they would please, there'd be anarchy. Of course, this could be taken by some black-or-white extremist and use it to promote any form of dictatorship.

Nuances are overrated.

[JohnTF]

Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A.

When somebody too naive to think that those things have been invented, and/or the patent office is too ignorant to grant a patent and/or trademark on either, some or all of those.

Driving, gun-carrying, law practice, and engineering are also some of the things that are licensed.

If anybody could do anything as they would please, there'd be anarchy. Of course, this could be taken by some black-or-white extremist and use it to promote any form of dictatorship.

Nuances are overrated.

Countries have TV and even Radio Licenses -- my friend in Prague told me it was a very low fee for the radio, and they pretty much gave up collecting it with the advent of small radios and their proliferation. A friend in Paris told me that the tax man sometimes came to the door to collect the TV tax, -- the owner often claimed the TV was broken, and dropped it while showing the guy. TV taxes in France and Britain are much higher than in Czech.

I think nudity should be taxed, and a fee paid any time someone is completely nude, though carrying a wallet might be inconvenient.

The concept of things in the airways not being taxed here has always been interesting, then again, I pay taxes on Cable-- they take it out of the "air" and ---

Regards, John

[JohnTF]

A corporation is saying that since they modified a photograph they had limited rights to, they are co-creators, and have some sort of ownership rights. So far it is tough sledding, anyone looking at this $250Million lawsuit? I would think it would be of interest to you Roger?

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2012/04/...license-terms/

Regards, John

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by huntjump

Actually Chris, it is completely RIGHT and pursuant to international law that New Zealand signed on to. It's known as the Berne Convention [...]

Actually the Berne Convention is not concerned with extradition at all. All it stipulates is that New Zealand recognizes the copyright of foreign authors in the persecution of domestic copyright infringement in New Zealand. That's it.

Arguing that it then also provides for arbitrary shipping of infringers between signatury countries is a big stretch.

China for example does not see this agreement as binding, though signed it (and we all know how much China respects copyright hah).

There are some interesting things happening in China currently. There is a draft law on the table discussing copyright of music within China: http://www.china.org.cn/arts/2012-04...t_25077760.htm

The proposal is that after the publication of a piece of music, it should enjoy copyright protection for only three months. After three months, anyone should have the right to make recordings of music created by others, whether or not the original copyright holder consents, as long as one pays a state-set, one-time usage fee, which then gets redistributed to copyright holders, similar to the ACLS fees from which Roger financed his M9.

It's interesting to see how China is positioning itself. This is not really concerned with private copying so much as with the creation of derivative works. Nevertheless it's pretty crass - three months is not a lot of time to establish an original piece of music on the market, and I can see how artists are not enthusiastic about this proposal. Authorities seem pretty set on this, however, and it will be interesting to watch how it plays out and what the results will be.

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Authorities seem pretty set on this, however, and it will be interesting to watch how it plays out and what the results will be.

This will indeed be interesting. Since the 'forties, China has been, allegedly, a Communist state, so it is coming from a totally different starting point. The essence of Communism is that the workers jointly own the means of production and the fruits of their work, while the state exists only to see fair play. I'm sure that many readers will give a hollow laugh at this point but that is the current myth.

It would seem to follow, then, that the three month offer is remarkably generous, in the view of the committed Communist, because the individual should share the means and the fruits of production with everyone else who made it possible, such as the people who educated him, the people who produce the food he eats and so on.

Of course, the Chinese elite have long since taken crypto capitalists under their wing and decided that Communism is for people who do not work for their friends. I anticipate that this is the start of China repositioning itself to do business with the rest of the world in the entertainment sphere.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by Paul T.

Worth pointing out, as well, that we people in the publishing industry - which in the UK is the last great manufacturing industry - subsidise those in academia. There's a beautiful irony in the fact they think we should give our work away.

There are a lot of beautiful ironies here. I've never been based in the UK, so the deindustrialization of the country and the resulting shifts in whose taxes subsidize whom don't affect me much. But one of those delightful ironies is that you call the UK publishing industry a "manufacturing industry", when much of the revenue stream you're putting so much effort into defending doesn't revolve around manufacturing anymore than does, say, the finance industry - which, incidentally, in terms of taxes contributes much more heavily to the financing of UK academia.

Another, less beautiful, but much more serious (and for some parts of your industry probably fatal) irony is that this publishing industry that you praise so loudly has in the last ten years been abysmally bad at keeping good relations with the academics that produce part of your content. That publishing industry of yours, for example, is lobbying very hard in countries like the US to remove regulation that research that is paid for with public funding needs to be publicly accessible; I'm sure you're aware of the protests over the last few months where thousands of scientists protested against publishing houses like Elsevier because of this. At the same time, it is not uncommon at all nowadays that you have to sign away the copyright of a paper already when submitting it for peer review. At this point nothing has been published, yet the publisher can do anything they want with your paper and its results. Then when you want to read your own paper in the journal it's published in, you better hope that you're affiliated with an institution whose library has an (extremely expensive, incidentally) bulk electronic subscription with the publisher, otherwise you end up paying significant amounts for the right to download your own paper. So as a content creator, not only do you not get any share of the revenue your content generates, in fact you have to pay to access it yourself. It is therefore hardly surprising that a lot of academics find open access models increasingly attractive - if you're not going to get any of the revenues for your own paper anyway, then why should some commercial entities get those revenues only to restrict access to your paper for everybody including yourself, when the alternative is open access which gives you the same revenue (zero minus zero again), the possibility of much more visibility, while merely denying the revenue from your paper to a few greedy sharks in suits, who aren't interested in your work anyway except as a cash cow. People in many branches of academia despise scientific publishers with a passion. Given that the content in question is actually produced by the academics themselves, rather than the "publishing industry", your derisory attitude is IMHO entirely unjustified.

[dogbunny]

Originally Posted by PKR

THE SEVEN DEADLY MYTHS OF INTERNET COPYRIGHT

http://webnet77.com/webstuff/copyright.html

http://copyrightregistry-gov-form.us/

Is this written by the same David L. Amkraut that was running a green card scam and was sued by the FTC? Doesn't--on the surface--seem like the best guy to be taking legal advice from. I could be wrong, there may be more than one of them.

db

[wblynch]

Once you release an item into the ether it goes to all corners of the globe. You can not control what becomes of it nor into what uses it falls.

Not all recognize US law. And you had better believe that the citizens of 'signatory countries' will not take kindly to their friends and neighbors being absconded to foreign lands for imprisonment.

Copyright in the US was originally established for a short and finite time. Of course Disney has led the effort to stretch that time.

When a law becomes unenforceable, it ceases to be a law.

Only a world government with huge resources would be able to enforce trivial matters around the globe. The people of that era will consider it a waste of resources to pursue.

If you don't want something 'stolen' then don't post it. That is your only protection.

[dogbunny]

Originally Posted by PKR

I have no idea. The info in the piece seems correct from my experience with copyright and photos over the past 30+ years or I wouldn't have posted it. Ya never know with lawyers.. many bad, a few really good ones..

"From The 7 Deadly Myths of Internet Copyright"
by Los Angeles Attorney David L. Amkraut

Email: CopyrightFacts@Earthlink.net
Fax: (818) 637-7809

Law Offices of David L. Amkraut
2272 Colorado Blvd., #1228
Los Angeles, CA 90041

It looks like the guy you cite.. The addresses match.

http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/90041-...aut-38495.html

It doesn't mean the info presented is incorrect though.. but worth a further search for those interested.

I only ask because the website you referenced looks like one of those websites that posts pseudo-information on a topic when it is really just an advertisement for the guy that is mentioned. He even includes his contact info. Kind of like those websites that offer free information on how to lose weight, then they off-handily mention a supplement that "works great too."

[wolves3012]

Originally Posted by wblynch

Once you release an item into the ether it goes to all corners of the globe. You can not control what becomes of it nor into what uses it falls.

Not all recognize US law. And you had better believe that the citizens of 'signatory countries' will not take kindly to their friends and neighbors being absconded to foreign lands for imprisonment.

Copyright in the US was originally established for a short and finite time. Of course Disney has led the effort to stretch that time.

When a law becomes unenforceable, it ceases to be a law.

Only a world government with huge resources would be able to enforce trivial matters around the globe. The people of that era will consider it a waste of resources to pursue.

If you don't want something 'stolen' then don't post it. That is your only protection.

Well put. Technology and the internet have provided convenient means to distribute and air your work to a large proportion of the world population but also to copy it. Irrespective of rights, wrongs and laws that means you've given anything uploaded to the scrupulous and the unscrupulous. Unless you upload it with some means of control in-built, you cannot expect it not to be stolen directly. This reflects reality. If I point a gun at you and threaten to shoot you, would it be better to appease me, grovel, negotiate etc or better to point out that actually I could end up in prison for pulling the trigger?

If I were an artist, I would simply not upload usable-resolution photos, whole music tracks and so on. Even then, of course, some legitimate purchaser will likely do so. Digital files aren't secure, period. Time for a new approach and no, I can't say I have the answer to that problem.