If The UK Wants People To 'Respect' Copyright, Outlawing Ripping CDs Is Probably Not Helping
from the you-earn-respect dept
We had two separate stories late last week about copyright issues in the UK, and it occurred to me that a followup relating one to the other might be in order. The first one, from Thursday, was about the UK’s plan to try, once again, to push a new “education campaign” to teach people that “copyright is good.” We’ve seen these campaigns pop up over and over again for decades now, and they tend to lead to complete ridicule and outright mockery. And yet, if you talk to film studio and record label execs, they continually claim that one of the most important things they need to do is to teach people to “respect” copyright through education campaigns.
My guess is they say this because an education campaign is something they can actually do, so they can make it look like they’re “doing something” no matter how ineffective it will be. And, you can go back centuries and find that no education campaign has ever worked in magically making people respect anti-copying laws.
That brings us to story number two: on Friday, the UK’s High Court confirmed that ripping your legally purchased CDs and DVDs to make a digital copy for personal use is no longer legal (something that the government had only “made” officially legal a few months ago). The court even left open the possibility that anyone who relied on the official change in regulations to rip their own CDs might now face punishment for doing so.
This court ruling came about after an organization run by the record labels, UK Music, challenged the legal change.
Combine these two stories, and you have to wonder what the recording industry is thinking. As Matt Schruers noted on Twitter, this latest court ruling can only serve to destroy any credibility that copyright might have held for people:
If one set out to burn up the credibility of #copyright in a single act, saying there could be liability for CD ripping just might be it.
— Matt Schruers (@MSchruers) July 18, 2015
And yet, the recording industry does all of that, and then they think that a lousy (and misleading) education campaign will make people “respect” copyright? What are they thinking?
Filed Under: copyright, education, personal copying, respect, ripping, uk
Comments on “If The UK Wants People To 'Respect' Copyright, Outlawing Ripping CDs Is Probably Not Helping”
You shouldn’t try to make it illegal. You shouldn’t sue your biggest fans. You shouldn’t go after people for obviously non-commercial use of works. You shouldn’t put ridiculous statutory damages on works. You shouldn’t tax blank media. You shouldn’t pull works down from the internet because a few seconds in the background contain some copyright-covered music. You shouldn’t try to pass laws that limit free expression.
All those “shouldn’ts,” yet you still can’t tell us whether artists and authors shouldnt have copyrights. Funny that.
Re: What a stupid comment
It doesn’t even make sense. But of course Artists, and Authors should have copyright, it’s the Corporate publishing and recording industries that shouldn’t.
That’s why I publish all my music under a CC BY NC licence. That way if the corporate media industries think my work is good enough for them to make money from they can beg me for a license to do so.
Re: Re: What a stupid comment
Well, it depends.
We should have copyright under circumstances where all of the following conditions are met: Providing a copyright would act as an incentive which would result in works being created and published by authors materially in excess of those created and published by authors if no copyright were available. The copyright incurs minimal restrictions on the public, and those for the least amount of time, such that the harm the public suffers from the existence of copyright restrictions is less than the benefit the public enjoys due to the creation and publication of works which would not be created or published but for copyright, taking into account the limited immediate benefits enjoyed during the copyright term, and the full, delayed benefits enjoyed after the copyright term.
So whether authors should get copyrights and if so, what those copyrights should consist of, depends.
Architects, for example, didn’t get copyrights on their architecural works (buildings, basically) in the U.S. until about 25 years ago. We had a flourishing architecture scene without it, and the availability of copyright does not appear to have caused any changes for the better or even to be responsible for any improvements in architecture. But the copyrights still restrict the public. Thus, architects should not get copyrights for architectural works unless something changes in that field to make such a right worthwhile. OTOH, copyright probably is useful for, say, the field of literature, so granting copyrights to the authors of books ought to be an easy case to make.
Re: Re: Re: What a stupid comment
Even if there was no copyright people wold still write book, and possibly more intersting books that were not influenced by the publishers, where writers took on the input form readers to improve their craft or read up about how to write and what not to do and what to do.
If i read a book that i have loaned or been given from someone else and i enjoy it i will look for their website and if they had other books might buy them, or just share with friends that have those books as i am not prepared under any circumstances to pay more than £1 for a book. But if the author had a donate button to help him/her to fund a new book i am sure many would pay, and pay a lot more than the author ever made for their books before, damn can you imagine how much people would donate for a new harry potter series, maybe with it being about his son so starting from year 1 at hog-warts again.
I can actually see a new website appearing that is just for new books from authors a website like indigogo where authors can judge the interest in a new book in a series they write.
As much as musicians and film makers are having to change how they do business so are authors. And authors need to stop saying that if they do that it feels like getting charity, donating to a new book is not charity it is an investment and those authors that refuse to accept that are finished as authors, and that is a good thing as many new authors can gain peoples attention and money.
Re: Re: Re:2 What a stupid comment
Even if there was no copyright people wold still write book, and possibly more intersting books that were not influenced by the publishers, where writers took on the input form readers to improve their craft or read up about how to write and what not to do and what to do.
I’m not saying that no books would be written without copyright, but if copyright was completely abolished then it would be trivial to take someone else’s published book and republish it for free. Yes, that’s already the case with pirate sites, but if the copy is available on Amazon then the original author may lose a number of sales from people who may have been looking to purchase.
Then again, maybe Amazon would prevent this even if not legally required to do so, because they don’t take any margin from free “sales” on their site, so they won’t want to push away the authors who actually create the new content that people are willing to pay money for.
So… I dunno. I suspect that the hypothetical abolition of copyright would see a dramatic short-term drop in publication as people tried to figure out what the ramifications were… but by the medium-term the error bars on my prognostication efforts are too wide to see without turning my head.
Re: Re: What a stupid comment
Oh come on , it has been proven over and over and over again that the studios steal content from individuals and have even been sucessful in getting youtube to support them 100%. Damn on this site and TF there have been many stories of the studios stealing indie artists music and videos and the profit that goes with it.
When it comes to education people it will be interesting to see this time around , with all the social media out there today, how much of an uproar there is going to be about copyright laws and how much pressure it takes for the government to cancel all copyright laws for personal use of any material.
Hopefully this is going to be enough to upset the average person that normally sits to the side and just ignores copyright laws and encourages them to voice their anger at what rules they have to abide by and how stupid thse laws are.
And when people start realising that copyright laws are not a right but an agreement between the people and the content creators, well it could mean the end of copyright laws for any other than those that make money from distributing or sharing content. And torrenting is one thing that will become legal, damn everyone does it even the studios themselves why should it be illegal or how can it be illegal when everyone does it, it is like saying that everyone is a criminal if they chew their food, that is how stupid copyright laws are. And yes i would download a car.
Re: Re:
Well, seeing as only one side ie actively engaging in bribery, legal or otherwise…
Re: Re:
“You shouldn’t kill people with guns.”
“All those shouldn’ts, yet you still can’t tell us whether people should have guns. Funny that.”
Re: Sorry, but what is an unenforceable right worth?
Wouldn’t you barter that right for respect?
Re: Re:
You are so boring.
Re: Re: Re:
Trying to get Mike to actually state a position on copyright is boring? I don’t think so. I think it’s hilarious. Nothing makes him weasel faster.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whined the spambot.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The intentions of copyright are good. Its current application is bad. That’s Mike’s position, and the position of a lot of people on this site.
Now who’s the weasel?
Re: Re:
Well, I think everybody should have the right to lock his doors. But if there is a single, nation-wide lock provider who gets to decide what locks to install where and who attaches tripwires with nuclear devices to them and will reserve the right to keep your doors in whatever state he likes and come barging in at every time of day or night, and who only offers exclusive contracts I have to take for at least five years, I might very well choose to forego the luxury of using my right to door locks because the price is not worth it.
Artists and authors tend to get a lot less time of copyright protection these days than the media associations because copyright tends to last quite longer after their death than it did during their life.
So yes, I don’t mind artists and authors enjoying copyright protection for their works. But usually they only get the choice between getting none, or getting a completely nuclear option where they have to relinquish all control over both their works and their legacy. In return for some money, depending on whether the record company in question considers marketing of those works matching their strategies.
Re: Re: Re:
They don’t really start enforcing “their” rights until the author/singer/artist is dead, since then they don’t even have to provide the illusion that they intend to pay the artists
Re: Re:
“you still can’t tell us whether artists and authors shouldnt have copyrights”
Ignoring the horrible way that phrase was written, he has – if you read the actual articles he writes. He’s just never given you the answer you want, which relates to the fictional strawman version of him you set up an entire persona to attack and not the one that exists in reality.
But, hey, why address any of the points raised and why discuss why you disagree with them when you can just launch another impotent personal attack instead?
Re: Re: Re:
Blah blah blah. He clearly can form all kinds of opinions and explicitly state them. He just will never say yes they should have copyright or no they shouldn’t have copyright. This isn’t about fictional strawman personal attacks. It’s just a fact that he will not state a definitive position. And the more you call him out on it angrier he gets. But he still will never just say what he believes.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Going for the ‘repeat a lie often enough and people will think it’s the truth’ trick huh? Pity anyone who actually frequents the site and reads the articles will be able to see right through it.
He states his stances on the subject all the time, your problem is that it requires actually reading the articles to see this, something you clearly don’t, or can’t do, and hence you continue to claim otherwise.
To save you time, the following is probably pretty close to his stance on copyright in general:
1. The general idea of copyright is good, that of providing incentive to creators so they create more stuff, and the public benefits as a result when that stuff enters the public domain(theoretically).
2. Copyright laws need to be evidence based, not based purely on emotional arguments or claims that lack backing evidence. Current copyright law fails at this.
3. Copyright law is abused, often, and this is bad. Steps need to be taken to address this.
4. Reasonable enforcement of copyright is good, excessive or abusive enforcement is not.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Blah blah blah.
You’ve never made your position any clearer than that. Thanks again, jackass.
clicks report
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Blah blah blah.”
Once again, is it too hard for one of you people to act like an adult?
“He clearly can form all kinds of opinions and explicitly state them. He just will never say yes they should have copyright or no they shouldn’t have copyright”
So, he can state any nuanced position he wants, but it’s not acceptable if he doesn’t take an absolute black and white position because you demand it? He has to respond to your childish whining with exactly the answer you want, else you’ll whine and scream more? Figures.
Yet again, I’m sorry if reality is too complex for you, and the thoughts of intelligent human beings are too difficult for you to comprehend.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Funnily enough you’ll see the mysterious anonymous troll below, who worships antidirt’s feet, prattle on endlessly about nuance – yet that’s precisely what these trolls have never wanted, or produced in anything they post.
The hypocrisy is staggering, though perhaps not surprising.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“He just will never say yes they should have copyright or no they shouldn’t have copyright.”
I’ll try a dumb-it-down translation just for you. He said it depends on how it’s done. Yes for overall PUBLIC good. No for overall PUBLIC harm.
Would you like a drink yes or no? Answer: Depends is it bleach or water? The devils in the details.
Re: Re:
Remember that one time you got an insightful comment of the week?
Yeah, today isn’t going to be like that.
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t think that ever happened. Do you have a link?
Re: Re:
Gotta be a troll. Nobody’s actually this stupid.
Re: Response to: antidirt on Jul 21st, 2015 @ 4:04am
Give up, antidirt! Invincible stupidity is invincible. While I see that you meant the writer won’t state a position, it’s lost on the fanboys. I admit is worthwhile to get them into a barking mad frenzy so that no reasonable persons are deluded by TD’s facade, but I’m willing to concede defeat.
Re: Re: Response to: antidirt on Jul 21st, 2015 @ 4:04am
” I admit is worthwhile to get them into a barking mad frenzy so that no reasonable persons are deluded by TD’s facade, but I’m willing to concede defeat.”
Bark much?
Re: Re: Response to: antidirt on Jul 21st, 2015 @ 4:04am
I just think it’s hilarious that when he’s asked his position on copyright, he can’t form an opinion. His weasel logic is that he doesn’t have perfect information. But then in a post like this he has all kinds of opinions, even though he has no perfect information for any of them. It’s clear that he’s just too embarrassed to actually admit what he believes. I know the fanboys don’t get it, don’t worry. I just like to rub it in Mike’s face.
Re: Re: Re: Response to: antidirt on Jul 21st, 2015 @ 4:04am
And you fail at it constantly. So what?
Re: Re: Re: Response to: antidirt on Jul 21st, 2015 @ 4:04am
Are you retarded or delusional?
Re: Re:
“All those “shouldn’ts,” yet you still can’t tell us whether artists and authors shouldnt have copyrights. Funny that.”
That makes absolutely no sense.
Re: Re: Re:
He was saying you shouldn’t do this you shouldn’t do that. My point is that he won’t say whether there should or should not be copyright. It was certainly awkward, I’ll agree.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or stupid. But hey, that’s you.
Re: Go back into your hole antidirt
It’s been a nice ~2 weeks around here without your idiotic bleating. And the ~6 weeks prior to that lone post. You should go back to being silent.
Look at the upside: if you’re silent at least you’re not advertising what a spectacular shithead you are.
Re: Re:
Funny that.
Well, he certainly wouldn’t tell you, because you would just lie about it and act like an asshole.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdirt.shtml#c1210
Perhaps if they hadn’t disrespected consumers from the get go perhaps then the 2 way street of respect might exist.
Instead consumers get screwed and bled, and the labels wonder why people won’t respect them demanding full control over products after they have sold them.
They want people to ‘respect’ copyright in the same sense that the one guy from South Park wants people to RESPECT HIS AUTHORITY.
They have a Plan B
No ‘respect’ needed, they will just club you with 10 years in prison instead:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2418432/pirates-faced-with-10-year-jail-terms-in-government-review
Re: They have a Plan B
Yet another reason I avoid consuming any newly produced media. Once the media companies decide to treat me like a customer rather than an enemy and their products as wares rather than volatile contraband, I might choose to be a customer.
Until such a time, I have enough stuff to do with my time that I can perfectly well forego any participation in this penalty-, restriction- and criminalization-ridden circus.
I refuse to participate in this war on consumers.
“he most important things they need to do is to teach people to “respect” copyright”
Respect is earned, not “taught”.
Most with a modicum of experience know this. Those that do not apparently think they can “teach” others to respect that which they themselves hold dear, in total absence of any understanding why others might not agree.
What exactly would this “teaching” involve and would there be a test?
It must be remembered that for most of copyright history, the legal limited monopoly called copyright was supported by the cost of entry to markets that were prohibitive for the private non-commercial user. For commercial infringers, these were small in number and manageable in the court system.
Today, all manner of commonplace devices can do the task. The mistake they make is in thinking that the law was ever a deterrent to casual infringement (sharing of culture, in effect). It was not, it was simply a capability that few people had. Starting with cassette players, that has gradually changed so that today everyone has the capability. That the law says I can’t make a cassette copy for the car or rip a cd to my phone of something I have already paid for is silly and unenforceable.
It is a shame that there are idiots are so oblivious of this that they will torpedo a law change that costs them nothing and is in real the tiniest step towrads the 20th century.
Re: Re:
and that our Grandparents always told us ‘its good to share’
and that we all share books becasue we know it encourages reading, promotes authors and increases sales.
Presumably thats why all lawyers have magazine tables in their offices to share their reading materials and show how cool they are.
Respect? Blundered away in 1841
Thomas Babington Macaulay, MP, notes in his speech in the house of commons, 1841, regarding the proposed copyright extension to after the death of the author:
And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the words of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.
That was the moment respect for copyright died. And it won’t get it back unless you lift these unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the words of the dead.
The whole speech is extremely enlightening:
http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/commentary/MacaulaySpeeches.html
This is absolutely horrific…the inhumanity of rights holders refusing to formally acquiesce and declare that making an unauthorized copy of a work is perfectly legal because big, bad meanie gatekeepers have it in for the large number of people who ignore the law and generally get away with their actions without consequence.
Rather that the anal retentive purity advocated here, perhaps it would be beneficial to ponder the question “Just how many lawsuits are being pursued against individuals who privately rip CDs they have purchased to place copies of files on their personal music-playing devices for their private listening pleasure?” I personally do not recall any such suit. The ones I do recall were all associated with the public distribution of ripped copies, which is an entirely different matter.
Re: Re:
“This is absolutely horrific…the inhumanity of rights holders refusing to formally acquiesce and declare that making an unauthorized copy of a work is perfectly legal because big, bad meanie gatekeepers have it in for the large number of people who ignore the law and generally get away with their actions without consequence.”
Yeah, no. You’re missing the point. As military organizations learned millennia ago, the quickest way to undermine your authority is to issue orders you know won’t be obeyed. You can only push so far – Prohibition in the USA proved that.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s M. Slonecker posting for the sake of his hero, antidirt. Expect him to miss the point completely.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you intentionally ignorant or is it a hereditary cross you are forced to bear?
Your seeming inability to formulate a relevant substantive comment on any issue being discussed here suggests the latter.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Where is your substantive comment?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Don’t count on it. This is the sort of commentary that M. Slonecker considers insightful and substantive.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
You are obviously someone associated with this website, so your animus towards anyone who might contradict or try to clarify/correct/etc. something published here is understandable…and at the same time deplorable because it shows in stark terms that you will not countenance other viewpoints that do not promote your narrative. To proclaim that discussion is welcome, and to then try to silence those who might have a different view or perspective, tells me that only those who parrot the views expressed here are permitted to participate without reprisal. Sad, because I have always found that a discussion involving seemingly incompatible and diametrically opposed views are the ones that provide the greatest opportunity for actually learning about a subject and all its nuances.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Please point to the place the big meanie tried to silence you.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
You can pretend that you’re interested in a nuanced discussion all you want; no one is fooled.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Sad, because I have always found that a discussion involving seemingly incompatible and diametrically opposed views are the ones that provide the greatest opportunity for actually learning about a subject and all its nuances.
Well whaddaya know, GamerGate folks aren’t the only ones into sea-lioning.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
If he was really in favor of “a discussion involving seemingly incompatible and diametrically opposed views” instead of criticizing Techdirt for allowing him to express his opinions here he would be criticizing these ‘educational’ campaigns for not allowing IP critics to express themselves.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
No one is stopping you from expressing your ‘nuanced’ views yet I have yet to see anything substantial come out of the likes of you.
and I agree that discussions providing a wider range of opinions provide a more nuanced understanding of things. That’s exactly why Techdirt has been a good place for us to discuss these issues. It’s also, ironically, why these one sided ‘educational’ (or more like indoctrinating) campaigns are a terrible arena for a nuanced understanding of these issues since they only really allow one side of the debate, yours, to be presented. Here everyone’s side, including yours, maybe presented. This is exactly why you should be against these ‘educational’ campaigns and part of the purpose of the OP, to help explain why these one sided ‘educational’ campaigns are bad (for the very reason you state, they only present one side). but I suspect you’re probably not against them. You’re not really in favor of “a discussion involving seemingly incompatible and diametrically opposed views” you are in favor of a one sided ‘discussion’ where only your side is expressed.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
(to continue where I left off)
But maybe I’m just prejudging you. Maybe you really are in favor of “a discussion involving seemingly incompatible and diametrically opposed views”. If you are then you would have no problems criticizing and opposing these ‘educational campaigns’ for being one sided. Can you do that? Here is your chance to prove me wrong. Surprise us all. Admit that these ‘educational campaigns’ are bad. I await your response.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
You know, I can overlook the obvious undying hero worship you have for those who have no purpose other than to annoy and berate other users.
What I find the most pathetic is how you proclaim to have moderate views of copyright enforcement, and yet, you’ll leap to the defense of any law with unenforceable terms or high collateral damage, insisting that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Hell, right here, you’re claiming that a law that outright prohibits ripping CDs isn’t going to be used to go after people who rip CDs they personally purchased.
It’s even more pathetic that you think anyone believes your sad shtick, outside of your sycophantic idols.
Go have out_of_the_blue’s offspring or something like you want so much.
Re: Re:
“I personally do not recall any such suit.”
So, bad laws are OK just as long as they’re not enforced? You didn’t think that one all the way through. But, even then you’re wrong.
“The ones I do recall were all associated with the public distribution of ripped copies, which is an entirely different matter”
Just because you chose to be ignorant of them, that doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. It’s true that most of them have been levelled against people who make the hardware and software to allow ripping rather than end users, but here’s a couple I recall that I found after a few moments searching. There are others.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2490564/technology-law-regulation/ford-and-gm-sued-for-millions-over-cd-ripping-tech-in-cars.html
So, do you have any justification of these actions, or are you in the mindset of “some people might decide to do something wrong with their otherwise legally obtained file, so we’ll make ripping illegal even for those who commit no other crime” camp? The latter group gets zero respect from me.
Re: Re: Re:
“bad laws are OK just as long as they’re not enforced?”
The funny thing is that I frequently hear US legislators say that outright.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To which the response should be, “If you’re never going to enforce it, then why have it? The only point of making something a law is if you intent to enforce it at some point.”
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Plus, they’re very handy to have in such cases like former speaker Dennis K.
“Statute of limitations, sorry.”
“No prob. We’ll just entrap him with lying to a federal officer instead.”
Re: Re:
So logically you’d be fine with a law that said it was OK to crush your car if you were found with a defective brake light, as long as there weren’t too many prosecutions?
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jul 21st, 2015 @ 6:00am
Yes, clearly the lack of lawsuits trying to prevent something that (up until last week) had been legal is proof that this law is reasonable.
I hear they haven’t sued anyone for singing in the shower, either, so clearly a law banning that is similarly reasonable.
Re: Re:
How many people have had to purchase a new game cd for the xbox or playtation due to the disc wearing out or cracking or scratching during normal use.
That is why i want to be able to copy my content from cd and dvd’s and blu rays.
Due to their greed i have had to buy the same disc four times and many discs three times due to them wearing from normal use.
I want the right to copy my discs or the right to download the games and play them as i would have my original.
I have lost a lot of money replacing discs for my kids to play their favourite games, and i am almost sick every time because i know i am being stolen from but i will hack my xbox eventually and feel no guilt.
And i don’t care if it is illegal any more as they have stolen from me, and there is no need for them to do so as they are already making billions from gamers just buying new games without the billions they make from people having to buy the same game multiple times.
Of course, since “it’s not longer legal”, you might just skip the hassle and expense of buying a CD and ripping it and just download the songs from somewhere where somebody already uploaded them illegally.
Clever strategy for getting people not to buy CDs anymore.
Re: Re:
That’s one option. Another (mine) is to finally recognize that what they’re producing isn’t worth even that much trouble and effort. Go find something else to do instead.
Clever strategy to finally rid us all of these noisy, arrogant, self-entitled, litigious buggy whip mfgrs. who distrust and despise their actual remaining paying customers.
Abolish Copyright
It’s insane.
Too bad the government’s opposition to extremists doesn’t seem to extend to copyright extremists.
record labels
they are stupidly insane idiots and trolls the fucking stupid cunthole cunts of cunty cunts
The digital media industry lost the plot when it tried to restrict distribution based on geography and release dates – and strong-armed the hardware manufacturers into enforcing it. Back up a few years: what would you have said if your turntable refused to play a new vinyl album because you snuck it into Montreal from Burlington? What would you have said if it was illegal to rip your fragile new album to reel-to-reel? Amazingly, music did not die just because common sense prevailed. Arguments about how easy it is to make digital copies really do not apply to one-off personal use. So why make something illegal when it is totally inoffensive? Because law is a very blunt weapon, especially when wielded by idiots.
the most ridiculous thing is ‘You shouldn’t try to pass laws that limit free expression’.
that should be aimed at the politicians who continuously do whatever is demanded by the industries, to do as much harm, for as long as possible, on to the customers! why is it that no one, not a single person in a powerful position has ever tried doing things the other way? instead of trying to get the worst possible punishment used, try to get things the customers ask for? if i had a chance of buying a movie for £2 or getting it for free with the distinct possibility of being run in for doing it, surely the way to go is the £2 way, isn’t it? £2 is next to nothing, being fined even £100 isa lot! getting a bigger fine or even worse a spell in jail, is so much worse. the problem is, though, that neither the entertainment industries nor any of the governments or politicians want to do anything except take the road that hurts the people the most! now sensibly tell me why that is, please?
Re: Re:
Why? Because they’re lazy minded, ignorant, gullible, and stupid. Gov’ts learned this truth ages ago. It’s how they keep the MafiAA on the hook.
A few years ago, my gov’t forgot this truth and jacked up the (“sin tax”) price on tobacco. There was an immediate explosion of tobacco smugglers. The gov’t couldn’t back it out fast enough. It cost them the moon for enforcement attempting to stop them.
Shhh, don’t tell the MafiAA. It would seriously screw up a few politicians’ campaign budgets.
Re: Re:
The chance of ever being caught or have to appear in court for copying any music game or film or even book from the internet is the same chance as winning the lottery, in fact the odds are stacked in your favour even more than winning the lottery as they have to choose amongst the billions of people worldwide who share content with each other, the chance it is you in court is just a fluke.a 1 in a multi trillion chance, so why worry about it.
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t buy lottery tickets, so in my case the odds are correct.
Did you know reading Techdirt makes you violent? Or at least tolerant of violence? Where a decade ago I most probably would have been horrified to learn of a murdered record exec, ISP CEO or member of the other groups of usual suspects hereabouts, I wouldn’t be able to muster more than a ‘meh’ by now, because seriously, chances are in favor it’s not exactly a loss for the world in general. I’m just so *TIRED* of their escapades, it’s not even funny anymore.
I decided that for my own personal purposes, I will respect the Copyright Act of 1790 for determining whether or not I will pay for works which I consume.
If the work is less than 28 years old, I’ll pay for it. If it’s older, I’ll find it online for free.
Re: Re:
Really? So you only respect copyright for works written by American citizens and residents, and only if those works are books and maps, and only they were properly registered with the clerk of a federal district court?
Let me get this straight: TD says people who create content have no right to control copies, but purchasers of CDs do have a right to rip the content?
Where exactly is your “right to rip” stated? What’s it based on? You’re asserting a “right” that can only exist after the creation of a work, while denying primary rights to the creator!
That’s just ridiculous. — And the court only said it can’t find such right, not that as practical matter you’ll be thrown in jail if rip a CD. Sheesh.
Give up, antidirt! Invincible stupidity is invincible. While I see that you meant the writer won’t state a position, it’s lost on the fanboys. I admit is worthwhile to get them into a barking mad frenzy so that no reasonable persons are deluded by TD’s facade, but I’m willing to concede defeat.
Re: Let me get this straight: TD says people who create content have no right to control copies, but purchasers of CDs do have a right to rip the content?
You’re cute.
Re: Let me get this straight: TD says people who create content have no right to control copies, but purchasers of CDs do have a right to rip the content?
Anybody who goes the publisher route promptly loses control over most of their rights granted under copyright by signing them over to the publisher, label or studio. The people who want to control the use of copies are predominantly those middlemen, who do not create anything for themselves, but rather make a rich living by controlling the works of others. As far as the actual creators are concerned, these middlemen are poor payers, unless you can get a decent upfront payment, like the big movie stars do.
Re: Let me get this straight: TD says people who create content have no right to control copies, but purchasers of CDs do have a right to rip the content?
It’s considered “fair use” in the US.
http://info.legalzoom.com/copyright-law-making-personal-copies-22200.html
Re: Re: Channeling the spirit of the *AA's and other maximalists
Blasphemy! The only ‘fair’ use is paid use! If you’re not paying for every single use of a work, no matter what context you’re using it, then you’re stealing the food right out of starving creators’ mouths, and anyone depraved enough to do this deserves to be thrown in jail and/or pay fines large enough to purchase a house with!
Re: Re: Re: Channeling the spirit of the *AA's and other maximalists
Basically out_of_the_blue and antidirt profess the view that only an author has the right to read his own story aloud, and no one else.
It’s funny how both those two clowns think consistently trolling on a site they claim has no effect on anything is getting them anywhere.
Re: Let me get this straight: TD says people who create content have no right to control copies, but purchasers of CDs do have a right to rip the content?
“Where exactly is your “right to rip” stated? What’s it based on?”
Since you’re the one who wants to impose artificial limitations on what’s possible (as all laws do), what’s your justification? What possible reason can an artist or creator have for wanting me to buy multiple copies of the same file for personal use in my house, car and portable music player? We all know that the only real intended “benefit” is for the copyright holder (probably not the creator) to make more money, but I’m curious to hear your reasoning anyway.
Re: Let me get this straight: TD says people who create content have no right to control copies, but purchasers of CDs do have a right to rip the content?
“Where exactly is your “right to rip” stated?”
First sale doctrine. If I buy a book, it doesn’t matter whether I read it, use it to line a bird cage, wipe my ass, make a paper mache sculpture or photocopy it, or even resell it. I am free to do so as long as I do not do something infringing with the resulting copies. The original author doesn’t get a say after they’ve taken my money. So, why am I not free to do the same with a legally purchased CD?
Like it or not, the people you worship are removing rights, and the paying customers they’re attacking are not happy about it.
Re: Let me get this straight: TD says people who create content have no right to control copies, but purchasers of CDs do have a right to rip the content?
Where is the guberment granted rights for you to look with your eyes, hear with your ears, and smell with your nose? Show us where it’s written.
Life is full of natural rights that are given to us by our very nature and existence. Not all things come handed down from the governments on high. Slavery is an example of governments and thugs trodding on the natural rights of individuals with less physical power for selfish benefits.
Many governments are nothing more than thugs using threat of violence. The laws they write may not be moral or right. The government where I live has laws that are immoral, wrong and violate natural and constitutional rights.