US ISPs become 'copyright cops' starting July 12

[Mini-Me]

Just as Mini-me said above, copyrights are really a different matter of essentially theft, misrepresentation, and exploitation of someone else's creative work, and thus, I do not know why I'd lump it in with a larger discussion about "intellectual property". It's copyrights that are in question here, and it's clear that those infringed upon and had money stolen out of their pockets are well within their right to self -regulate with other companies involved in facilitating it, if not even compensation with a lawsuit, or at very least an order to cease and desist.

Whoooa. I'm glad you're agreeing to narrow the focus to copyrights from "intellectual property," but I think you might be misunderstanding/misrepresenting what I said a bit...quite a bit.

 

[QWDC]

I think the final solution to the piracy problem this will be mandatory online activation for every single product, EVERY time you open said application. They already do that with some software I use for school. That way you can let them pirate the product if they want, but they can't use it. Or, by the time they crack so they can use it a new version will already be available.

 

[TheGrinch]

Whoooa. I'm glad you're agreeing to narrow the focus to copyrights from "intellectual property," but I think you might be misunderstanding/misrepresenting what I said a bit...quite a bit.

I'm narrowing down the focus to copyrights because that is the only thing relevant to this thread: piracy of copyrights... My apologies for reducing "intellectual property" to that when it's clearly more complex (and I agree only making things worse), but no, I understand what you're saying, it's just not relevant to the discussion. Enforcement of copyrights (particularly if self-regulated and not forced by government) is what is relevant and justified here.

Yes, ideas are not original, but original works are, so like I said, it is irrelevant to try to treat the two as the same thing. Copyrights are the only thing relevant to piracy, thus it makes sense to leave it to a discussion of that.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm narrowing down the focus to copyrights because that is the only thing relevant to this thread: piracy of copyrights... My apologies for reducing "intellectual property" to that when it's clearly more complex (and I agree only making things worse), but no, I understand what you're saying, it's just not relevant to the discussion. Enforcement of copyrights (particularly if self-regulated and not forced by government) is what is relevant and justified here.

Yes, ideas are not original, but original works are, so like I said, it is irrelevant to try to treat the two as the same thing. Copyrights are the only thing relevant to piracy, thus it makes sense to leave it to a discussion of that.

No work is truly "original". Every work you can name was created by arranging discoveries and ideas of millions of other people throughout history. An idea can only truly be "original" if a person grew up all alone and invented everything himself. Since no man is an island, this is clearly an impossibility. Take a piece of music for example. The 12 tones and their various ranges were first arranged purposefully well before written language or notation in song. Taken to its logical conclusion, the IP proponents would be paying royalties to the estates of millions of dead people every minute.

 

[Mini-Me]

I'm narrowing down the focus to copyrights because that is the only thing relevant to this thread: piracy of copyrights... My apologies for reducing "intellectual property" to that when it's clearly more complex (and I agree only making things worse), but no, I understand what you're saying, it's just not relevant to the discussion. Enforcement of copyrights (particularly if self-regulated and not forced by government) is what is relevant and justified here.

Yes, ideas are not original, but original works are, so like I said, it is irrelevant to try to treat the two as the same thing. Copyrights are the only thing relevant to piracy, thus it makes sense to leave it to a discussion of that.

The arguments I made above about "intellectual property" still apply to copyrights not being property as well though. I'm not sure if you'll ever be convinced that copyrights are not property, and that viewing them as such is counterproductive and antithetical to the free market (it took me a while, especially considering I'm a software engineer type), but I think you could benefit a lot from reading the techdirt articles I linked to, just so you have a fuller understanding of the arguments opposing yours.

 

[TheGrinch]

The arguments I made above still apply to copyrights as well though. I'm not sure if you'll ever be convinced that copyrights are counterproductive and antithetical to the free market (it took me a while, especially considering I'm a software engineer type), but I think you could benefit a lot from reading the techdirt articles I linked to, just so you have a full understanding of the arguments opposing yours.

Fair enough, I'll check them out when I have some time, but no, do not expect me to easily sway from the notion that the original works I produce are my own property, by virtue of the fact that me and my creative mind produced them. I'm entirely curious how forcing me to put my own works on par with free shareware is somehow good for the economy and not harmful... Considering hte arguments against force frequently used here, I find it highly ironic to force me to give away my creative works for free, potentially to the profit of others, just by virtue of producing them.

Methinks your confusing idealism (the wya things should be), with hte wya things are. If you allowed everything to be given away for free, then it's only exploitative others that will profit from it... And again, my works are my property jsut the same as a bench I might decide to build. Just because the pirating community isn't interested in exploiting and giving away my bench does not make my works any less of my property because they do.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Fair enough, I'll check them out when I have some time, but no, do not expect me to easily sway from the notion that the original works I produce are my own property, by virtue of the fact that me and my creative mind produced them. I'm entirely curious how forcing me to put my own works on par with free shareware is somehow good for the economy and not harmful... Considering hte arguments against force frequently used here, I find it highly ironic to force me to give away my creative works for free, potentially to the profit of others, just by virtue of producing them.

Methinks your confusing idealism (the wya things should be), with hte wya things are. If you allowed everything to be given away for free, then it's only exploitative others that will profit from it... And again, my works are my property jsut the same as a bench I might decide to build. Just because the pirating community isn't interested in exploiting and giving away my bench does not make my works any less of my property because they do.

You're confused about the proposition. Noone is saying "give your stuff away". We're saying "don't prohibit people from using their property and minds as they wish".

You're confusing [state] idealism (the state should impose artificial scarcity to benefit "creators"-the way things "ought" to be) with economic reality (ideas are not scarce-IP is a fiction of, by, and for the state-its roots are primarily in British Mercantilism; the way things "are"). IOW, confusing is/ought.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

I'm glad I don't download things illegally.

It sucks though.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm glad I don't download things illegally.

It sucks though.

Ah, but if the entertainment industry had their way almost everything you download would be illegal.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

 

[Ninja Homer]

I'm glad I don't download things illegally.

It sucks though.

Downloading copyrighted material is NOT illegal. Uploading it is illegal, and giving copies to others are illegal, but not receiving copies, although the RIAA and MPAA have done everything within their power to make you think it is.

The way copyright should be is that only the creator of the copyrighted material can use it for profit.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

Downloading copyrighted material is NOT illegal. Uploading it is illegal, and giving copies to others are illegal, but not receiving copies, although the RIAA and MPAA have done everything within their power to make you think it is.

The way copyright should be is that only the creator of the copyrighted material can use it for profit.

So when I d/l it's fine, but if I turn around and upload it for it to be d/led then it's a crime? Or another form of sharing?

 

[TheGrinch]

You're confused about the proposition. Noone is saying "give your stuff away". We're saying "don't prohibit people from using their property and minds as they wish".

Isn't that how it is now? I can choose not to copyright my property and say "hey' sure you can use it". There are plenty of outlets where you can give your works away for free and allow the spread of information, but you as for 'prohibiting people from using my property and minds as they wish", to not do that spits in the face of it being my property. That means it's my choice (permission) if you can take it and plaster it all over the internet for free or worse for profit.

So yes, I can do whatever I want with my property and choose to share it with whom ever I choose. You do not have the same right to take, reproduce and even profit from the works that I created, my property.

Further, this attitude that you can take whatever copyrighted works for free and cost companies millions is only going to embolden them to pass the exact laws we don't want to see. I'd rather the market regulate itslef to eleiminate it, rather then them eliminate more of our fredoms. That's the reality we face if we allow them to use piracy as a precedent for control. If the market doesn't eliminate it, they will continue to lobby for the feds to take control. It's costing them MILLIONS that they've spent millions to produce, and again, it is their property, or further a service like any other that they do not give away for free. Just because people have the ability to steal it here, doesn't make it any more right, and yes, is completely anti-business to assume that their work and property are free for you to use without their permission.

 

[Ninja Homer]

So when I d/l it's fine, but if I turn around and upload it for it to be d/led then it's a crime? Or another form of sharing?

Correct. But keep in mind that if you get it via torrents or another file sharing protocol, then you are technically sharing it as you download it, so that's copyright infringement and illegal.

 

[Ninja Homer]

One thing the OP Fox News article doesn't mention is that this was coordinated and pushed forward by the Obama administration and the State Department after the failure of SOPA/PIPA and ACTA. They're basically doing an end-around, and laying down the framework to spy on your internet usage through ISP's. I don't know if any Federal incentives were offered to ISP's for doing this, but once the ability to spy on internet users is put in place, and people get used to it and accept it, it's a much smaller jump to legalize full-on spying.

This is how your freedom is being taken away, death by a thousand cuts. It doesn't matter how you feel about copyright infringement... you should be against this.

 

[kuckfeynes]

Meh, if anything seriously happens as a result of this, it will just drive the development of new encryption technologies and encourage more people to get involved in amateur penetration testing. Best way to create more of something is a black market, Pandora's box, cat out of the bag, etc, etc.

(Also, were the old days of exchanging private FTP logins with trusted parties really so bad?)

 

[TheGrinch]

One thing the OP Fox News article doesn't mention is that this was coordinated and pushed forward by the Obama administration and the State Department after the failure of SOPA/PIPA and ACTA. They're basically doing an end-around, and laying down the framework to spy on your internet usage through ISP's. I don't know if any Federal incentives were offered to ISP's for doing this, but once the ability to spy on internet users is put in place, and people get used to it and accept it, it's a much smaller jump to legalize full-on spying.

This is how your freedom is being taken away, death by a thousand cuts. It doesn't matter how you feel about copyright infringement... you should be against this.

In light of new information, fugg that! That has nothing to do with copyright infringement. Obviously they've been prepared to use both "piracy" and "cyber-threats" as a foothold to control the spread of info on the internet.

 

[LibForestPaul]

I don't care about people trying to make a business on a faulty model. Sure a mafia boss would also be upset if all of a sudden cops showed up and shut down his business. Should we feel bad for him or care about him?

IP is not property.

AND copyright laws are illegal, self evident

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Isn't that how it is now? I can choose not to copyright my property and say "hey' sure you can use it". There are plenty of outlets where you can give your works away for free and allow the spread of information, but you as for 'prohibiting people from using my property and minds as they wish", to not do that spits in the face of it being my property. That means it's my choice (permission) if you can take it and plaster it all over the internet for free or worse for profit.

If you really don't want other people to use what you sell as they wish, don't sell it. Don't make it available for others to observe. You have no business telling people what they can/can't do with their property or their minds. You are advocating a tacit contract. If you know your contracts, these are virtually unenforceable.

So yes, I can do whatever I want with my property and choose to share it with whom ever I choose.

Yes, I cannot do anything with your real property. (IP IS NOT AND CANNOT BE REAL PROPERTY BY ITS VERY NATURE)

You do not have the same right to take, reproduce and even profit from the works that I created, my property.

If ideas were property, that would be correct. They are not-therefore you are incorrect

Further, this attitude that you can take whatever copyrighted works for free and cost companies millions is only going to embolden them to pass the exact laws we don't want to see.

It doesn't cost companies ANYTHING. The "profits" you speak of being "lost" exist on paper only. You're treating legal fiction as if it were fact.

I'd rather the market regulate itslef to eleiminate it, rather then them eliminate more of our fredoms.

The market would eliminate it. It never has and never will be a market phenomenon. It is not a "freedom", but an attempt to abridge freedom.

That's the reality we face if we allow them to use piracy as a precedent for control. If the market doesn't eliminate it, they will continue to lobby for the feds to take control. It's costing them MILLIONS that they've spent millions to produce, and again, it is their property, or further a service like any other that they do not give away for free. Just because people have the ability to steal it here, doesn't make it any more right, and yes, is completely anti-business to assume that their work and property are free for you to use without their permission.

Again, treating hypotheticals and legal fiction as if it were truth leads you to err (just as the mercantilists failed).

 

[cindy25]

live theaters tried to block the movie industry in the 20s
the movie industry tried to block radio and then tv
they all tried to block the VCR, which became the dvd player

technology always finds a way around it. and Hollywood in the end benefits.