GWB signs a new p2p law

[cudaman73]

I realize I'm opening this up for a flamefest, but I'd like to keep this as civil as possible. I also realize that this may not be too appropriate for this site, which is why I chose /dev/random as the forum ;)

I'm just wondering how you guys feel about p2p and it's effects on the economy and/or ethics/morals. Read this /. story.

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/04/28/1223244.shtml?tid=155&tid=126&tid=103

Let me know what you think.

Personally, I pirate some things. I used to pirate a lot. I don't pirate much at all anymore. Do you think it's right to limit the availibility of things on the internet? Even if they are illegal? It seems anyone with any morals or ethics at all would say absolutely yes, but I don't really agree. I believe that signing a law about prereleasing movies (and the DMCA) is more like putting a tariff on downloadable movies. Except this tariff is more hit-and-miss. You might have to end up paying for it.. or you might not. Is this all one huge race not to land on a hoteled Boardwalk?

[bs_texas]

Oh boy! Slashdot fodder! :rolleyes:

;)

Edit: I don't think it should be illegal to post stuff up on the internet. If they don't want it posted, they should guard it better.

[Icarus]

Originally posted by bs_texas
Oh boy! Slashdot fodder! :rolleyes: I'm sure there are plenty of great posts about this up on Slashdot, see what they think...I'm sure they are an angry bunch because "data should be free!!" :rolleyes:

There is too much piracy going on and the excuse of 'I'm not stealing, just making a copy' is lame and immature
There are licenses that a lot of software comes with and they all say "Don't copy or redistribute" or some form of lawereese of that.

Buy the software you use, don't take it and give money to OSS projects because you support what they do! :cool:

[azambuja]

What do you mean what do we think?

I know it's illegal. I think that big companies make crappy stuff or just have unrealistic ideas of what we'll put with and people commit piracy. I think they would even if services, etc. were better. That's about it.

The world isn't all that fair to everybody. Why should big companies have special care?

[vontez]

There is too much piracy going on and the excuse of 'I'm not stealing, just making a copy' is lame and immature

I think this is on the money. Piracy is immature, but from my point of view it is mostly being done BY the immature. I used napster in its "free" days, but now that I have a better source of income than my part-time high school job I buy the music/software that I want. I know it is available to download illegally, but why steal? I really don't think software piracy is an issue the president should be wasting his time on.

[cudaman73]

hey.. actual posts.

Glad this isn't slashdot. heh.

I was just curious.. and bored up at school. To be honest, i expected a mod to freeze/delete the post and warn me o_O

[Parcival]

Well, as long as we have a good discussion here and nobody encourages others to engage in illegal activities, there's no reason to lock it.

My personal point of view:

It doesn't make sense to pirate software, movies or whatever else there is. However, the lawmakers have to come up with a healthy balance between business interests and consumer rights.
The owner of a video rental shop once put it this way: in the early days of the VCR the movie industry was afraid that copying video tapes would ruin them, and today it's normal to go and pick up a movie at the next video rental place to have a fun evening with friends. In other words, a certain degree of freedom concerning videotaped movies made them spread fast and integrated them in our modern societies. (sony betamax case (http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/sony_v_universal_decision.html))

Currently we hear a lot of whining from Hollywood. I don't really get it why, though. I have never downloaded a movie because in a cinema the view and the sound is better, the emotions by the rest of the crowd make me enjoy the movie even better plus the nice lady at my side definitely makes this better than watching a movie on my small laptop screen alone in my office. :)

We need wise legislation that won't throw school kids into prison and grants profits to innovative studios. I'm sure in a couple years we will handle these things as naturally as we do videotapes today. Now I'm just waiting for Apple to open their iTunes Music Store in Switzerland finally. :rolleyes: :)

[cudaman73]

I guess I'm one of the "bad kids" then, because I seem to take a standpoint that defies any sense of ethics or morals. I don't mind pirating things. I'm not worried about the implications of it, because, if I enjoy whatever I pirated (movie, music, program, or otherwise), I'll probably buy it in the future. I think the best example at the moment would be music. Music isn't just a one-time thing, rather, you listen to it over and over again (obsessively in some cases). If I enjoy the music, why not support the band? They -did- go through all the time to write and record the stuff you're listening to.

But I do have another question:

Without looking at any graphs or doing any research, how much money do you estimate that movie producers/artists are actually losing?

[cudaman73]

Originally posted by Icarus
There is too much piracy going on and the excuse of 'I'm not stealing, just making a copy' is lame and immature.

How many people actually use that excuse though? It holds no water with me... and I'm indeed guilty of it from time to time. I don't "make copies". I don't see any need to. You don't download something you don't have to make a copy of it.. You make copies of software you already have.

[bsm2001]

A lawbreaker can land in jail for up to three years for distributing a single copy of a prerelease movie on the Internet.

This would lead me to believe that the movie, record, and sotware industry are the ones violating there own copyrights by not maintaining strict control of how the material is handled. {IE movie co. makes a movie and before it is released to theatres it's already available to download so for this purpose they need to look internally because jo public has no access to the prerelease prior to the movie hitting the theatres.}

What's your opinion of this sentence.

[Parcival]

Originally posted by bsm2001
What's your opinion of this sentence.

No, they don't violate their own copyrights. Before a movie gets into the theatres, the movie company has to give away early copies to several viewers, e.g. for rating the movie and make a recommendation what age it is suitable for. These are the places where movies "leaked" in the past and it's okay to punish them because that's heavy duty pirating. It's also okay to punish somebody who has evidently filmed a movie with a small camera in a theatre.

However, it's not okay to send people to prison simply for having a camera with them in a movie theatre or a kid for giving a copy of the latest Britney Spears song to his best pal in the schoolyard.

[cudaman73]

Originally posted by Parcival
However, it's not okay to send people to prison simply for having a camera with them in a movie theatre or a kid for giving a copy of the latest Britney Spears song to his best pal in the schoolyard.

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here for a second, and argue with you.

Well, what else would you have a camera with you in a theatre for? It would only get in the way if you weren't using it. I agree to an extent, but I think that it's perfectly fine for it to be illegal to carry a video camera in a theatre. Unless you're under some... interesting circumstances (which are rare), you won't be in there with one for any purpose other than filming the movie.

As for arresting kids for giving copies of songs to their friends, why shouldn't that be illegal? Say a kid thinks it's okay to give out one or two songs. Would it not be logical to assume that we, as human beings, test the limits of our restrictions, and if that's true, what would stop that kid from thinking that maybe one or two albums would be okay? Or even a movie?

[cudaman73]

Originally posted by vontez
Piracy is immature, but from my point of view it is mostly being done BY the immature. I used napster in its "free" days, but now that I have a better source of income than my part-time high school job I buy the music/software that I want.

I hate to be a troll... but I love arguing. So the fact that I may or may not be able to afford some program or movie I want to buy makes me immature? I don't believe that income should be a basis upon which to judge maturity.

I'll step aside here for a second and assume that by immature you meant young. Wouldn't you agree that the majority of people who make pirated copies of things availible couldn't possibly be younger than, say, sixteen or seventeen? It would take someone with a lot of wit (or maturity, I guess you could say) to figure out a way to get a camera into a theatre to film a movie. Sure, they could "know someone". But do you think there are actually that many connections?

As far as music goes, anyone with a basic knowledge of computers could make a pirate copy availible, so you're probably right there.

But what about programs? What about the effort put into making serial generators and work arounds to the protection built in? Do you really believe it's all being done by the young?

[Parcival]

Originally posted by cudaman73
I'm going to play the devil's advocate here for a second, and argue with you.

No problem.

(1) The thing with the video camera:

It shouldn't be illegal to bring a camera to a movie theatre because crrying one doesn't mean one intends to commit a crime with it. Think about tourists, for example.

Furthermore, there are efficient ways to check this problem. The movie industry already is giving nightvision goggles to movie theatres to trace secret filmers, plus soon every movie shown in a theatre will have an individual fingerprint on screen that can't be seen by the human eye but that will be copied into the pirated version. If anyone wants to spread this, they're gonna be caught pretty soon.


(2) Concerning the kids sharing things in the schoolyard

The German courts (same goes for Switzerland) have ruled sharing copyrighted material "between two people connected by a special relationship" to be legal. I can give any mp3 file I ripped from my CDs to my brother or my best friend and it's perfectly legal. Sharing my folder online in a p2p software isn't because no sane human being is going to believe I have a "special relationship" with anybody leeching from me. Same goes for LAN parties.


I think good laws are good compromises - a very Swiss attitude, BTW. ;)

[vontez]

Everything that is done, should be done in moderation.

[thaddaeus]

if I enjoy whatever I pirated (movie, music, program, or otherwise), I'll probably buy it in the future.

Bull, i use to tell myself this same thing. Its just a lie same as saying

'I'm not stealing, just making a copy'

All togather pirating is wrong. It is stealing no matter how you look at it and people although you may not like them do disserve payment for their effort, even if its under par.

[Omnscnt(Sortof)]

The internet is the world's only stable anarchy that has ever existed. We should cherish that. We should pass no laws restricting the internet or data for that matter.

On the other hand, the restrictive laws that we have now keep most people from downloading movies or music illegally, it is only a small majority of internet users that do that, and it's not as if movie stars are struggling to eat or pay bills.

On some third mutant hand, the laws we have now are too restrictive. I read somewhere(American Free Press or Popular Science maybe?) that music people are alowed to hack the computers of people suspected of file sharing... by law:eek:! Now that is going too far.

Part of the argument is that the government will abuse it's control over the internet if they get too much, and they will use any excuse to get that control, even something as pathetic a data pirateers. The government is tyrannical and doesn't like that the internet is one of the few places it cannot control.

[cudaman73]

Originally posted by thaddaeus
Bull, i use to tell myself this same thing.

but the thing is... i do own many of the cds i have pirated. tell me i'm lying to myself then.

[cudaman73]

Originally posted by Parcival
(1) The thing with the video camera:

It shouldn't be illegal to bring a camera to a movie theatre because crrying one doesn't mean one intends to commit a crime with it. Think about tourists, for example.

Furthermore, there are efficient ways to check this problem. The movie industry already is giving nightvision goggles to movie theatres to trace secret filmers, plus soon every movie shown in a theatre will have an individual fingerprint on screen that can't be seen by the human eye but that will be copied into the pirated version. If anyone wants to spread this, they're gonna be caught pretty soon.


Even as a tourist in japan, I never took a video camera into a theatre. It seems to be a faux pas of sorts. You have absolutely no need for a video camera in a theatre. Anything you could possibly capture legally on a video you could also capture legally with a camera.

Originally posted by Parcival

(2) Concerning the kids sharing things in the schoolyard

The German courts (same goes for Switzerland) have ruled sharing copyrighted material "between two people connected by a special relationship" to be legal. I can give any mp3 file I ripped from my CDs to my brother or my best friend and it's perfectly legal. Sharing my folder online in a p2p software isn't because no sane human being is going to believe I have a "special relationship" with anybody leeching from me. Same goes for LAN parties.

I'll agree with you on this point.. except I don't believe it's all too fair to allow sharing with someone who you have a "special relationship" with. At least, here in America, that leaves far too much room for argument and debate. Unfortunately, we are a society that needs black and white rules, because if given an inch, we will take a mile. Maybe those laws work in Switzerland and Germany, but you must remember that the Germans and the Swiss have a much different mindset than Americans. I agree that a good law is a good compromise, but how many good laws do Americans have? My fear of having a law like that here in the States is that people will go to amazing lengths to prove that they have a special relationship with some guy they only met a matter of hours before. We're just like that.

[cudaman73]

Originally posted by thaddaeus
All togather pirating is wrong. It is stealing no matter how you look at it and people although you may not like them do disserve payment for their effort, even if its under par.

I don't disagree, but I never said it wasn't stealing. And who said that I didn't like the people who made whatever I decide to pirate? I don't know those people, they could be either perfectly nice people or complete *******s. It has no bearing on whether or not I'd pirate something.

[cudaman73]

Originally posted by Omnscnt(Sortof)
Part of the argument is that the government will abuse it's control over the internet if they get too much, and they will use any excuse to get that control, even something as pathetic a data pirateers. The government is tyrannical and doesn't like that the internet is one of the few places it cannot control.

your point? of course the gov't is going to be angry they can't control it.

[Parcival]

Originally posted by cudaman73
Even as a tourist in japan, I never took a video camera into a theatre. It seems to be a faux pas of sorts. You have absolutely no need for a video camera in a theatre.

(...)

Maybe those laws work in Switzerland and Germany, but you must remember that the Germans and the Swiss have a much different mindset than Americans.

Well, I personally don't see any need for carrying a camera in a movie theatre either, but this one is about freedom. My point is that one should carefully weigh freedom against safety. Ultimate safety means no freedom, ultimate freedom means no safety. That's why we need democratic processes to carefully work out the healthy balance we need.

Concerning the different mindset: partially true, but it's not like Europeans are from Venus and Americans from Mars. In every society there are those looking for the loopholes and the big majority with a healthy attitude to comply with the laws.

Last night I talked with my friend working at the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (http://www.ige.ch/defaulte.htm) about the upcoming revision of the US patenting system. He explained to me that in the fields of intelllectual property the mechanisms always work the same:

[list=1]
A new phenomenon appears a society hasn't laws for yet (e.g. Napster). Law always is a re-active discipline, i.e. laws can only be passed on something that has happened, they are always one step behind. This leaves a lawless time-window for a while.
The industry kicks in to protect its rights. As they try to protect their investments they try everything (!) to get the control back on how intellectual property spreads. A period of time follows that is very customer-unfriendly.
As the industry has highly paid lawyers it takes a while for consumer protection boards etc. to pick up on the issue, fight legal outgrows, and give consumer rights a stronger standpoint.
[/list=1]

This whole thing may be a moral issue for you as an individual, cudaman73, and you are mostly bringing forward moral arguments in this discussion. However, in reality what's right and wrong isn't being determined by morals alone. Part of it is morals, part of it is the big buck, and part of it is a democratic process going through all the three branches of government. When I visited the US congress in 1997 they were busy in the house passing a law on child safety seats in cars. Consumer rights at it's best. :) Your culture may be different than mine, but there are certain things that work just the same on both sides of the ocean. ;)

[cudaman73]

Originally posted by Parcival
Your culture may be different than mine, but there are certain things that work just the same on both sides of the ocean. ;)

Fair enough.

Great argument. Seriously.

[hard candy]

What is funny is the fact that I have watched movies made by people using digicams in theaters. Very bad quality, peoples heads showing up on screen, sound is muffled, the studios have nothing to fear from cameras in movie theaters.
What they do have to worry about are the people getting digital feeds off the projecter and making copies on a laptop hard drive (telecine is the term) and people posting promo dvd's (sent to movie theater managers for advance screenings) on the web. These are good quality.
As usual, the corporate world has missed the clue train.
As far as the morality of piracy goes, it is wrong. And can be costly if you do it.
I read about a flea market in England being raided where vendors had stalls with the latest movies (Sin City, Constatine, National Treasure, etc) for sale with signs listing the titles. Most big cities in the US have street vendors with DVD's for sale of the new releases.
But for the best quality, wait for the official release with intact sound tracks, intact menus, and final director cuts of the films made especially for dvd release. $10-15 for a new dvd is a lot cheaper than your cable or dsl company cutting you off because of a letter sent by the MPAA.

[Omnscnt(Sortof)]

your point? of course the gov't is going to be angry they can't control it.

cudaman73:

My point was, that the government shouldn't have control over everything. It will censor what people say and ignor the first amendment. You don't really want to have to use the internet with big brother breathing down your neck, do you?

[cudaman73]

Originally posted by Omnscnt(Sortof)
cudaman73:

My point was, that the government shouldn't have control over everything. It will censor what people say and ignor the first amendment. You don't really want to have to use the internet with big brother breathing down your neck, do you?

Did you ever take gov't class? Do you know what the first amendment says?

[Omnscnt(Sortof)]

Did you ever take gov't class? Do you know what the first amendment says?

The government already does limit what you can say, didn't you notice when they started those designated "free speech zones"? Those were supposed to be places where people could talk about controversial subjects without being arrested or the like, but America itself is supposed to be entirely a free speech country. With the PATRIOT act now they can arrest whoever the heck they want for whatever reason they can think of, and they have started with people who speak ill of the current administration.

This is really not the forum for a political debate of this nature, we can debate this elswhere. (I have no suggestions as to where, you pick if you want to continue this)

[cudaman73]

I don't particularly enjoy political debates, because for one, I'm not as informed as I'd like to me (my understanding of the constitution and its amendments is severely limited), and I'm also terrible at it, as I'm not a very political person. Suffice to say I do agree with you, although I want to point out (get the last word? :P) that the constitution makes no specific claim that you can't be arrested for saying something.

But honestly, I do agree. We should stop this. Although, it is /dev/random, so I dunno.

[Icarus]

Ya, this thread to a wrong turn and didn't stop to ask for directions :D

You could try picking this up in #justlinux on irc.freenode.net
maybe...