Crap Copyright Amendment

[jrandom]

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...

Too right.

And that odd little blip in technology that allowed musicians and music distributors to get a deathgrip on copies of recorded music is now past.

Could we, perhaps, now see musicians having to rely more on live performances to earn a living? Will the distribution companies have to offer value in return for a fair price?

Certainly if the average consumer can pay a few dollars for an album downloaded in perfect uncompressed quality with no ridiculous DRM plastered over it, versus having to fluff around to get a copy that sounds bad even on a pocket MP3 player, the choice will be clear.

Copyright laws are still valid. Anyone making a profit from selling copies of other people's work should still be chased. But once the cost of making and distributing copies becomes zero, the landscape changes. If making and sharing a copy of a work has zero cost and therefore adds no value, it becomes impossible to profit from it. That applies both to the original distributors and to the 'pirates'.

We'll get back to that original position where the only real value was created during the actual performances of the work. And perhaps that's the way it should be.

[The Stranger:Me]

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

Do you suppose that there could be a balance perhaps?
You appear to look at it from your perspective alone.

Many performers make obscene amounts of money. This is not about jealousy, but seriously, how much is enough? How many theme parks and sleep overs with little boys do you really need?
What values an artists work over say your work?

Copyright.

I find something distasteful in people who rely upon the govt to fleece the populace for their primary source of income.

Not suggesting that all copyright protection should be removed, however I feel they have gone and are going too far. Sure the Internet is causing them some problems, but they have had it so good for so long, all we are seeing is a realingment.

As with any industry there is a supply and demand. If the demand is not there for their creativity then sure they will fuck off and do something else. Welcome to the real world without protectionism, the rest of us have to deal with that, get over it.
But that is the key element - the demand not being there i.e. the value placed on their work (when not artificially inflated and protected) would be low to cause this result.

Going back to the days of Roger Douglas as Minister of finance. A report was released that showed that for each job in the auto assembly industry the protectionism in place was costing us $120,000.00 PA. He, bless him took it apart. During the years before his reign we spent millions and millions of dollars stockpiling wool as a result of supplementary minimum pricing policies, again he fixed that. Despite the end of the world at the time, we still have cars and we still have farmers.

[nigel]

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.

Nobody is voiding artists' rights. Copyright is still a great concept, it's just that when copying costs nothing, no amount of sword-waving will stop people from doing it.

And you can't really blame the people too. Our society is built upon the idea that things are worth something. E.g. when the government wants more support for Maori in software, it makes it economically sensible for products to do that by making it a condition of funding. Our society is _not_ built on strict moral code, where even if copying was free it would be morally reprehensible to make a copy. That's just the world we live in, and something you can't change.

Back to voiding rights - in fact, copyright is used as the basis for copyleft, which explicitly allows copying, but can attach conditions like "you can't claim you wrote this". So for example, the software I write is distributed for free, anyone can change it and modify it, send it on to their friends etc - but they can't remove our copyright notices from the source code. And most of the time, getting software for free is such a good deal that nobody would even think of it!

The Creative Freedom foundation explicitly says that they're not for taking away artist's rights by the way - they just disagree with guilt upon accusation laws, which take away everyone elses.

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?

Like I said, yes you're out of luck until you come up with a new business model. I suggested several previously. The world changes, you have to change with it instead of fighting it. If you agree with me that there's no putting the plug back in the bottle with regards to copying, you'll easily see the need to change.

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

Of course not. It's a pity our society isn't built on stricter moral values. But then if it was, copyright would probably still be 14 years, and you'd still be allowed to copy for the purposes of satire or parody - which is illegal in New Zealand by the way (thanks to Helen).


imdying: dead right mate.. humans got this far by adapting to change, corporations live and die by the same rules

[nigel]

Apparently the government is going to "watch how the law is implemented in practice": http://www.stuff.co.nz/4831125a11.html

There's also a poll on stuff about this.

[Lias]

An email I sent to various work colleagues/friends etc the other day. Figured I mayswell share it here too.

Hi All,

As some of you aware Comrade Clark and her band of communists passed a copyright amendment bill to stifle P2P in New Zealand. This law requires ISP’s to disconnect “repeat offenders” who download copyrighted material. The safest way is to stop all downloads of P2P content, but you and I know that that just isn’t going to happen. So I have a few tips on how to be as safe as you can be while torrenting etc.

1. Install Peerguardian, which you can download from http://phoenixlabs.org/pg2/
2. Add lists to PG2 from sites like I-blocklist http://iblocklist.com/lists.php
3. At a minimum, use the Bluetack Level1 and TBG Primary Threat lists, but I also recommend various others such as “TBG General Corporate Ranges”, “TBG Hijacked”, “TBG Bogon”, and all 4 DCHubad lists.
4. Use software like NetLimiter to cap your P2P client to a max 1kb/sec or lower upload. This saves you dollars on bandwidth as well as somewhat reducing the ability for others to download from your client and thus monitor it.
5. As soon as you have finished downloading a file, move it out of the default incoming directory to a place that is not visible to your P2P client, as they generally share the incoming folder.
6. Do not share any files other than what you are currently downloading and is incomplete.

Happy downloading folks, don’t let intimidation and scare tactics prevent you from sticking it to those greedy corporate fatcats.

[Lias]

Copyright is still a great concept,

Copyright is a completeley anal concept in a digitial age. Its oldfashioned, outmoded, and just plain wrong.

Copyright needs to be replaced with the worlds biggest shareware/donationware sceheme, you can copy/share all the music, movies, games, etc you want, and if you like it, you make what you think is an appropriate priced donation to the authors.

[Cajun]

An email I sent to various work colleagues/friends etc the other day. Figured I mayswell share it here too.

peerguardian does not work with vista or server 2008(i am running at home at moment, needed for some sharepoint stuff for wife.) when i was using xp i ran peerguardian nice nice for blocking stuff

[nigel]

Copyright is a completeley anal concept in a digitial age. Its oldfashioned, outmoded, and just plain wrong.

Copyright needs to be replaced with the worlds biggest shareware/donationware sceheme, you can copy/share all the music, movies, games, etc you want, and if you like it, you make what you think is an appropriate priced donation to the authors.

I agree in principle that given that copying is instant and easy, people shouldn't try to prevent copying. But I disagree that copyright needs to die. In a nutshell, it gives artists rights over their works for a limited amount of time, which is really important when you consider things like being credited for creating a work. I think though, it's all the other things that the record labels and software companies are doing with their rights that make you think copyright is a bad idea.

Currently major labels obtain the copyright to the songs of the artists, then try to restrict distribution - which is a fine idea, until distribution becomes free and easy. Many software development shops do the same thing - write software, try to control its distribution - and are being burned by the fundamental reality that copying costs nothing these days.

What is better is if you use your copyright to support better business models. In my case, we give away our software for free, then make money when people want customisations (we also make money from a partnership program - the brand name of the product is trade marked and we sell the rights to use the brand name also). I've detailed before the many ways in which artists can use different business models in combination with giving up some of the rights they have through copyright, to continue making money.

You might ask why you need copyright to just give your software away? Well in our case (and the case of the Linux operating system and thousands of open source applications), we use copyright not to restrict copying, but to restrict someone else taking our work, modifying it, selling it on and not giving back the changes they have made. So you can download my software, study it, make changes to it, but if you give the changed software to someone else, you also have to give them the changes you made (e.g. you can't just send them a compiled executable). This means that other people can't just piggy back off my work to sell their own solutions without at least giving something back.

If there's no copyright, there's no incentive to distribute any software, because people could just take it for their own use without crediting you or giving their changes back [1]. So copyright law, in fact, has helped encourage the billions of lines of code out there that are open source, to be written, which adds a huge bonus to the world wide economy.

[1] Some people choose to license their software in a way that doesn't force people to give back their changes too, instead just using copyright to prevent others from saying they wrote the software. It depends on your business model as to what type of license you pick.

[SPman]

Stop measuring your success by how many CDs you sell - plenty of bands do well out of touring.

Most artists make their money out of touring and selling their paraphenalia at concerts and more and more are using the net to reach their fan base.
The net has opened up a world of music I didn't know was available, most of which is so obscure I couldn't buy it if I wanted to (and in the past, when I found an artist I liked, I would try to buy their work, (if it was available), but, trawling obscure online music suppliers trying to find obscure works in obscure currencies becomes rather tiring after awhile and, when a P2P source has it, it's easier to just double click and have it on it's way to a computer near you.........

[Kwakajack]

So the usual legal precepts have been swept away in favour of what?? The simple abuse of power again. While John Key harps on about democracy overseas in places where it is under attack or totally non-existant, he contentedly erodes our legal rights back home. This is hypocrisy in its most blatant. What is next? Freedom of speech, should we quote someone or other while responding to a post on this exalted forum and not reference that quote with source, page number etc? Its a slippery slope . . . . . and god forbid if this legislation gets passed into law!

[n3on]

I work at orcon and until now I relished deleting the 'Claimed Infringment notices' from Universal pictures and other movie companies. We still haven't nailed out out actual procedures for this sort of thing but I'm hoping we don't follow the 'rule'!

Until further notice, you'r DL'ing is safe through Orcon

[Lias]

peerguardian does not work with vista or server 2008(i am running at home at moment, needed for some sharepoint stuff for wife.) when i was using xp i ran peerguardian nice nice for blocking stuff

Run a VM of XP, with the P2P app and PG running inside of that under 2K8. Or go the whole hog and use ESX *grin*.. When I finish my current project thats keeping me busy, my next home project is to replace my 2k3 DC with an ESX implementation with a mix of 2k3 and 2k8 servers chugging away. Just for the hell of it :-)

I agree in principle that given that copying is instant and easy, people shouldn't try to prevent copying. But I disagree that copyright needs to die. In a nutshell, it gives artists rights over their works for a limited amount of time, which is really important when you consider things like being credited for creating a work. I think though, it's all the other things that the record labels and software companies are doing with their rights that make you think copyright is a bad idea.
.

Very simple fix, pass a law that makes it so that copyright infringment for non profit/non commercial purposes isn't infringement, but that commercial infringement is.. Problem solved :-)

I work at orcon and until now I relished deleting the 'Claimed Infringment notices' from Universal pictures and other movie companies. We still haven't nailed out out actual procedures for this sort of thing but I'm hoping we don't follow the 'rule'!

Until further notice, you'r DL'ing is safe through Orcon

I'd love to switch back to Orcon because the service was always great, but I left because the pricing became the suck. When they start offering $1/gb (or better!) pricing outside the Orcon+ Network I'll seriously think about switching back, but right now it's just too damn expensive if your outside the lucky parts of Dorkland (and soon to be wellington central I hear)

It's pretty wanky that they are still punishing those of us stuck on Telescum wholesale by charging double for our data ($2/gb on wholesale vs $1/gb on Orcon+) find a manger and hit them with a big stick till they change that

And yes Orcon has always been relatively P2P friendly, they used to run a DC++ hub years ago when local traffic was free :-) Oh the leeching that went on.

[Lias]

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...

Say for arguments sake you sell your software for USD$1000 a license. I would not purchase it, ever, at that price. If I copy it because I might want to use it once every now and then, or learn to use it or whatever then you have not lost a sale.

If your selling it for $5 a license, and I copy it you have a better case for having a lost a sale, but lets face it you cant even buy 5 year old out of date software for that much.

If was $5 for a home copy, I'd buy it rather than copy it, but at $150-500 for a MS OS, i'll copy it every time thank you.
MS Office, Paintshop, Premier Pro, Acad etc are even more outrageously priced, let alone things like accounting, CRM, ERP software etc.
Hell even games are fucking overpriced. If a game is popular, they refuse to let the price drop, COD4 for PC is still $90+ most places, maybe $70 if you look around hard, and the game came out 15 months ago!

I expect my place of employment to own legal software, but unless pricing structures for home use alter drastically, I probably never will.

[Cajun]

I work at orcon and until now I relished deleting the 'Claimed Infringment notices' from Universal pictures and other movie companies. We still haven't nailed out out actual procedures for this sort of thing but I'm hoping we don't follow the 'rule'!

Until further notice, you'r DL'ing is safe through Orcon

i would disagree i was sent an email via orcon about 2 1/2 years ago about downloading something i shouldn't have. stupid game i had uninstalled 30 mins after installing it

[ManDownUnder]

Say for arguments sake you sell your software for USD$1000 a license. I would not purchase it, ever, at that price. If I copy it because I might want to use it once every now and then, or learn to use it or whatever then you have not lost a sale.

If you'd never buy it at that price then you don't need it, making it a nice to have meaning you're nicking it for no good reason.

If your selling it for $5 a license, and I copy it you have a better case for having a lost a sale, but lets face it you cant even buy 5 year old out of date software for that much.

so even old SW has a value? Very true.

If was $5 for a home copy, I'd buy it rather than copy it, but at $150-500 for a MS OS, i'll copy it every time thank you.
MS Office, Paintshop, Premier Pro, Acad etc are even more outrageously priced, let alone things like accounting, CRM, ERP software etc.
Hell even games are fucking overpriced. If a game is popular, they refuse to let the price drop, COD4 for PC is still $90+ most places, maybe $70 if you look around hard, and the game came out 15 months ago!

That's like saying you'd rather buy sneakers from sweat shops (which you well might)... all the while denying to yourself you're benfitting at the express expense of others.

I expect my place of employment to own legal software, but unless pricing structures for home use alter drastically, I probably never will.

a tad hypocritical isn't it?