Crap Copyright Amendment

[mashman]

Dr Evil isnt the business logo dude, but if it was they can get stuffed I got Fembots and sharks with lasers tied to their freckin heads yall

Ya shittin me !!! oooo lazer headed sharks sweeeeeet

[mashman]

Innocent until proven guilty is what the legal system is founded upon!
I can't imagine anyone supporting this sort of legislation. However, there are a lot of crazy people out there.

Seems to be another case of trying to achieve something good but doing it so wrong.

What!!!!!!!!!!! the only people that know you're pirating information is yourself and your ISP... seems like a pretty fkin sensible idea to me!!!

[The Pastor]

Who is the greatest living NZer?

dave doybbn

[SPman]

The result of another piece of ill thought out, ill considered, knee jerk legislation by a net-illiterate piece of Labour uselessness - ie Mz Tizard!
Good riddance to her and any other of her ilk - may they rot in political and cyber hell!....whence this piece of shit legislation deserves to go!

[thehollowmen]

There will be a thousand ways to force them off the net. BUT here is my best effort:

Do html emails allow background tags?

I'm a photographer, Big Dave is a photographer, we could start sending them emails with copyright backgrounds, and force them off the net.


On the flipside of the coin, this could be a huge advantage to students / flatters / people who have short contracts and move around a lot. Sign up for a 24 month plan with all the bonuses, then when the contract runs out get two friends to dob you in.

[ManDownUnder]

This is the whole STEALING vs. COPYING thing.

<>

OK... so you you're saying that you making a dulpicate copy of the SW I sell and using it without paying for it is harming no-one.

Let's examine the economics of that for a sec...

You pay nothing get the SW which saves you labour and or otherwise gives you some benefit (let's assume you're not downloading it for the sake of it...)

Then there's me. Sales targets to hit, commission denied, quarterly and annual bonuses denied... all the while I have a mortgage to pay and tight economic times means that's getting more and more challenging...

To possibly put it into a different context. That's all the company I work for does anyway - copy the software and sell that copy. Apart from the minor issues of developing it, paying staff to package and support it... ongoing...

Piracy is theft. You're bullshitting yourself and everyone around you if you're taking the "it's only copying" line...

[Blackshear]

It looks as though you're thinking with it. Piracy is theft, no matter how you dress it up. I guess those who are not smart enough to make something that others want to buy miss the subtlety of that.

If I enjoy the product/thing, and genuinely like it, I will buy it. I have a good 80 music cd's at home, cause I likem. A few PC games here and there, some 'backed up' DVD's etc. I'm not a total tightass. If I like the people/product, again, I will buy it.

Though, were I in the other teams shoes, I'd be telling everyone to stop pirating.

I dunno.

[Dave-]

My avatar is me - I paid for the photo. The photo in my sig was taken by Gremlin - he sez I can use it.



You're tryin' to make me hard aren't you?

oh for sure, I think on a biker forum most people have pictures they've taken of their bike etc

you think I asked the publisher of the pearl jam video for permission to use that ^ segment?

sure didn't, and guess what your computer just downloaded?

[nigel]

While some may think that piracy is theft, the reality is a lot different.

APRA and their ilk will tell you that copyright is "the way artists make money from their art". This is misleading.

Copyright is in fact a government granted monopoly on the use of a work. You get copyright over something the moment your pen leaves the page, or you stop recording. You don't have to register your copyright. The government grants you the exclusive right to dictate the terms of use of your work for a certain amount of time after it's made. You may sell your work, or even sell your copyright if you wish, but it's yours to start with.

In return, copyright expires after a set amount of time. This is to aid creativity and allow future generations to build upon previous works. Also, people are allowed to make copies of parts of your work without your knowledge or permission, e.g. quoting an article. This is called "fair dealing" in New Zealand, and is an important part of free speech, for one thing.

So what copyright is supposed to be is a balance between artists/copyright holders, and the general public. In the beginning, copyright was for 14 years - more than enough, you'd think, to flog a song for all the money it's worth.

But the RIAA, IFPI and their bretheren have forced the length of copyright up to 50 years, then 70, and now they're pushing for 95 years. Mostly because they're still making money from '60's bands such as The Beatles. This really has swung the balance of copyright to the holders - seriously, how long do you really need to earn a living from a piece of art? Surely you can make more?

So in my view, the "theft" is the continued bludging of old music in new formats for high prices. Those execs do want their second yacht, damnit, and they'll bend any law they can to make it happen. Watch out for ACTA - the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement - being ratified this year, making it legal for APRA and their ilk to snoop on your internet connection looking for copyright violation.

If the industry wants to fix this problem, they need to change their business model. We can distribute music for free, so they need to get into the business of selling things that _can't_ be copied - concerts, merch and radio airtime.

[ManDownUnder]

If the industry wants to fix this problem, they need to change their business model. We can distribute music for free, so they need to get into the business of selling things that _can't_ be copied - concerts, merch and radio airtime.

You seem to miss much of the point. If things were entirely as you want them the industry will have no money, those in that industry will fuck off and do something that pays the bills - and talkback will be the only option remaining. It's not up to the owner of the goods to defend them - it's up to the theiving scumbags to stop breaking the f'n law.

It's theft - pure and simple. You take stuff I've worked long and hard to bring to market... of course I'm going to be pissed off. That's my reward being taken from me.

That's theft.

[nigel]

You seem to miss much of the point. If things were entirely as you want them the industry will have no money, those in that industry will fuck off and do something that pays the bills - and talkback will be the only option remaining. It's not up to the owner of the goods to defend them - it's up to the theiving scumbags to stop breaking the f'n law.

It's theft - pure and simple. You take stuff I've worked long and hard to bring to market... of course I'm going to be pissed off. That's my reward being taken from me.

That's theft.

You're trying to sell something that isn't worth anything. Not your art, of course - but copies of it.

It's simple economics. Supply and demand. In the "good old days", supply of your music to the world stage was hard, and you needed a producer to do it - all the CD pressing, shipping, advertising etc. Thus the supply was "scarce", and you could legitimately make money this way. And that was fine too - it _was_ a legitimate business model.

Fast forward to today - demand hasn't changed, but supply has. Now, to make a copy of music costs nothing. You can copy a file a million times with no effort, or distribute it around the internet for next to no cost. Now supply is infinite, so the price for a copy drops to zero. Now, your business model, which revolves around scarcity, won't work.

You can't fight it. Your kids [1] are "pirates" too - simply because it's a better deal to get the music for free. The only thing you can do is to sell things that are scarce - autograph your CDs, play live gigs, make merchandise, use your imagination! Stop measuring your success by how many CDs you sell - plenty of bands do well out of touring. Encourage donations! People who love your music will donate to your band, and pirates who wouldn't buy your CDs won't - you don't lose anything.

It might come as a surprise to you, but Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails both released their latest albums for free on the internet, and encouraged donations/sold autographed CDs (which of course are far more scarce than real CDs). What would you know - both albums were raging successes that netted the bands piles of money, none of which had to go to a producer.

The creative freedom foundation, who has kicked up awareness about this whole issue, is founded by artists who would rather people respect copyright, but don't want laws passed making people guilty before proven innocent in their name. I can't support the industry's side on this one, and neither should you, regardless of our argument over how you should be paid for your work.

[1] You may not have kids, or you might teach your kids to respect copyright (as the music industry wants you to know it), but my point still stands - millions of people around the world pirate every day

[ManDownUnder]

Fast forward to today - demand hasn't changed, but supply has. Now, to make a copy of music costs nothing. You can copy a file a million times with no effort, or distribute it around the internet for next to no cost. Now supply is infinite, so the price for a copy drops to zero. Now, your business model, which revolves around scarcity, won't work.

aaaa ok - so you're saying that because it's easy to do, and the taken products are in demand then it's ok?

... riiiiight ... gotcha...

edit - make sure you're looking at the right part of the supply side too. To supply the SW I sell costs a f'n fortune. If you want to supply it yourself (which is what you'll need to do if you put me out of business)... then it'll cost you a fortune. As I said before - if you think this ain't theft - or is a victimless crime (ok - I added that just now) you're bullshitting yourself.

[nigel]

aaaa ok - so you're saying that because it's easy to do, and the taken products are in demand then it's ok?

I'm saying millions of people have already decided it's ok, and trying to legislate against them is like trying to touch the sun. So work with what you've got.

edit - make sure you're looking at the right part of the supply side too. To supply the SW I sell costs a f'n fortune. If you want to supply it yourself (which is what you'll need to do if you put me out of business)... then it'll cost you a fortune. As I said before - if you think this ain't theft - or is a victimless crime (ok - I added that just now) you're bullshitting yourself.

You're in software? Open source it. The company I work for employs over 100 people who work on open source software. I myself am paid to lead development on an open source project. We give away the software, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, completely for free. We then make money when people want to customise it.

You call it theft, if people copy. That's fine, maybe it is. But what I'm saying is, you can't fight it, especially not with laws that presume guilt upon accusation, that's just madness. We give accused murderers and rapists these rights, what's so special about copyright infringement? Instead, change your business model. There's plenty of models that'll earn you money in this day and age. Trying to fight millions of people is a sure way to fail.

[ManDownUnder]

I'm saying millions of people have already decided it's ok, and trying to legislate against them is like trying to touch the sun. So work with what you've got.

I hear what you're saying but to openly void any rights artists have to their intellectual property will condemn them to fiscal oblivion. That's not the answer either.

You're in software? Open source it. The company I work for employs over 100 people who work on open source software. I myself am paid to lead development on an open source project. We give away the software, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, completely for free. We then make money when people want to customise it.

ok - soooo... you make money on the changes required post sale. So for those in the business of selling audio tracks - I'm shit out of luck?

Just because it can be done (and it obviously can, en masse, without a challenge) doesn't mean it should be.

[imdying]

I hear what you're saying but to openly void any rights artists have to their intellectual property will condemn them to fiscal oblivion. That's not the answer either.

I don't think that's what he means... tech has made their current business model unviable, they need a better one. Fighting it simply won't work, they well know that by now. There must be a model where everyone wins though... the industry has been through a number of transitions... the travelling minstrals, then proper theatre etc came along, then radio, then vinyl, then tape, then CD, and now a distribution mechanism that they cannot and could never control.