PDA

View Full Version : The begining of the Compaign for Copyright Fairness?



Captive
01-12-2004, 07:37 PM
Site: http://ipaction.org/blog/

Pretty interesting reading.

How many people think in a battle of:

'The People’ Vs ‘The Creators Monopoly’

That the people won?

Captive
01-12-2004, 07:56 PM
I would extremes can be bad, but then Who has the finances at present to 'balance' the equation? Does that not create an extreme?

Captive
01-12-2004, 07:58 PM
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65651,00.html

Alpert also noted the entertainment industry's history of trying to stop the sale of VCRs, for fear of piracy. The device and the home video market turned into a boon for both consumers and the entertainment industry.

"We still have a long way to go," Boucher said. "The equation is still unbalanced."

Captive
01-12-2004, 08:17 PM
Sorry about the typos =/ i should have my glasses on oh well.

It's the big issue that interests me more here, not the little semantics.

If a compaign to were result though i would concur with people stating small things affect big things as they do even with this, but if one is to consider we all may have our flaws we can start focusing on issues which are important e.g. for the advancement of society.

Captive
02-12-2004, 09:48 PM
Please note: I don't have enough stats.

But then what stats am i supposed to believe, and what information. that which comes from the associations that stand to gain? Would you expect it to be unbiased to ask a national party member or labour party member to make statements about other parties and consider where its against their interest for it to be unbiased?

Captive
02-12-2004, 09:49 PM
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,11538396%5E15425%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html

Music piracy is not stealing. It is breaching copyright. All these analogies of "how would you like it if someone broke into your house and stole your TV?" are just plain wrong. A better analogy would be someone breaking into your house, scanning your TV, making an exact working duplicate and taking the duplicate away leaving you with your original working TV. Would you mind? (apart from the breaking in bit :-).

Captive
02-12-2004, 09:56 PM
from ipaction.


"This was sort of a trial run to see if people will actually support candidates based on their intellectual-property policies, and they did," said Jason Schultz, an IPac volunteer. "We really felt there was a community out there that we could engage specifically on IP."

Alpert said IPac will research the records of legislators in Congress, provide people with information on how their legislators have voted, identify worthy candidates and help them with money and volunteers.

"I strongly support the effort IPac is making. It is important that a greater focus be brought to the need to balance the rights of copyright owners with the rights of the users," said Boucher, co-sponsor of the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (HR107), which would permit circumvention of digital locks on copyright content for non-infringing uses.

"The 1998 (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) makes it possible for creators of digital content to completely abolish fair-use rights with respect to that media," Boucher said. "The bill that I introduced ... would confirm fair-use rights for the digital era."

Boucher and his co-sponsor, Doolittle, are still in the process of collecting support to move the bill forward.

Boucher said that even though Hollywood and the record labels still have a lot of influence in Washington, consumers have gained ground since 1998. Now that the technology companies -- which believe tighter copy controls can chill innovation -- are aligned with consumer groups, there is a stronger presence for the public interest.

Does anyone have article references they want to add?

Captive
03-12-2004, 12:55 AM
(People disharmony * people) * reformcomputations*(Political interest -Corporate Bribery) = New Copyright laws?


I should really talk to someone who understand maths better *shrug*

Captive
03-12-2004, 12:56 AM
that should be 'new copyright law logic'

but then its a very loose inaccurate theory

Catweazle
03-12-2004, 02:32 AM
I dunno. Stealing is stealing. I'm a musician. if someone nicks my songs, I'm out of pocket. It doesn't encourage me to produce anymore. If no one pays for the right to hear my music, how can I live?

Mind you, the greedy music labels who sit on their butts, doing nothing but raking in cash, telling artists what they must play (or be dropped like a hot stone), then grab a majority of the sales percentages, really make me angry as well. At least artists' managers have to show that they're earning their money. If they don't, they lose out as well.

Did you know that the average signed musician is lucky if they get paid $1 or so for every full price CD sold, unless they release independently?

You've hit a raw nerve, here. I don't know who to direct my ire towards. The people who steal music or the music labels responsible for putting them in that position, due to extortionist pricing.

I do agree that copyright issues have to be sorted out. At the moment, they only work in favour of the corporate media heavyweights. However, I also don't expect the public to have a 'free lunch' at my expense.

Captive
03-12-2004, 02:46 AM
Well said from your perspective :-)

First note: I have about 30-40 Original CDs i have bought from both stores and trademe.co.nz, under 1 dozen songs from mp3.com, and under 2 dozen free audio loops from www.flashkit.com

I have 0 mp3s beyond that which are inapprorpiate if thats what your thinking

Second note: I don't agree things should be completely free.

In the world things have cost... and if there isn't an incentive to do something it may not be done

However if the incentive is geared to the favour of the large corporations and impede society that is also an imbalance i would assume

Personally i would like to see more harmony, and less corporates able to designate what happens and control what people know.

I have noted various large organisations stating it as theft, theft implies there was a loss, because something is copied may not always correlate to loss, in some cases it may however.

In the same senses it was implied that if someone recorded with VHS that the TV or similar stand to lose a significant amount of money, and i would assume scare tactics could have been reduced if people had independant information.

Earlier on people may use scare tactics about things when people don't have understanding of how it works for themselves, so facts portrayed can seem more believable without fair representation.

If the parliment was made by 90% military lobbyists do you think what would be informed as what parliment thinks is appropriate and wants to achieve would be different?

thank you for writing to me

Catweazle
03-12-2004, 04:19 AM
Thats an interesting point you bring up about the large corporations and theft. Take the RIAA for example. At the moment they're trying to claw money back from errant p2p downloaders. I can pretty well guarantee that not one of the artists involved receive one more cent extra as a result of their court action.

Personally, I think a lot is going to change over the next few years. The public, and in the case of music, the artists, are starting to wise up to the fact that the major recording labels are on the brink of becoming an anachronism. When the day comes when an artist is able to release their own work over a medium such as the net, more or less on a one-to-one basis with the consumer, at a price far more suited to both parties, then I think the big boys will really know their time is up. I see it happening already. I'm talking mainstream, not your odd small indy outfit. The only real incentive in signing with a major label is to get the global advertising and marketing exposure. Once someone finds their way round that particular problem, it'll only be a matter of time before the monopoly wannabes, i.e. the big labels like Sony, realise that their bluff has been called.

At least, that is what I would like to see happen. It may all just be a pipe-dream, of course. That and the fact that not everyone has a computer. There will be a demand for hardcopy for a long time yet, I should imagine, something only companies with a lot of fiscal backing can supply.

Of course, the large companies will fight tooth and nail to maintain their shareholders profits. The scary thing is, with their almost infinite resources, any chance of the small man winning will be quite slim, to say the least.

Its a hard question to answer.

drb1
03-12-2004, 04:33 AM
> I dunno. Stealing is stealing. I'm a musician. if
> someone nicks my songs, I'm out of pocket. It doesn't
> encourage me to produce anymore. If no one pays for
> the right to hear my music, how can I live?

If read abook from the libary have I stolen anything I didnt pay anyone.

The second you broadcast a song it can be copied for further annaylisis buy the conusumer. if it is not used for gain where is the issue.
it was proven years ago that sampling and radio recording promote alubm/C/D sales.

Their has been a pecentage of bootlegging (off one type or another) since their has been music it is part of it..

>
> Did you know that the average signed musician is
> lucky if they get paid $1 or so for every full price
> CD sold, unless they release independently?


Yes I did this is the problem.

It it the corporations that created this stupid situation soon they will be saying I can not hum a tune you Wrote, unless I pay them.

The entire distribution system, in the A/V industry needes a complete overhaull/replacment.

The current model no longer satisfiys the artist or the consumer.

~Patenting software is like patenting the text of a book. Neither is necessary to protect Intellectual Property~ (Unknown)

Stallman argues that

( ~ Like music, progress in software is dependent on the ideas that have gone before. The creative and innovative part is not the ideas themselves, necessarily, but the particular combinations that make up the whole. Patent the component ideas, and no one can write anything new.~ (Richard Stallman)

Patenting a Commercial business S/W package is one thing.

Patenting a mousu click to purchase and saying every user on the internett who has this metheod on thier site must pay an annuall licence fee for all time is totally rediculeious.

Operating systems are like tunes the code behind them should not be controlled by corporations.

The stupid American system of extending the copywright laws beyond the old 10 year period and allowing the manipulation of drug and S/w patents to run them in perputity. is at the very core of this problem.

If the globall system returned to the 10 year frame, so many problems would evaporate.

Pretty soon someone will probably copyright "Little Red Riding Hood" and no kindy Teacher will be able to read that story to children without paying a public broadcast fee.

Software patents are not nessecary the money is in the service/support of the package.

An idependant site was started to support WIN(* because M/S wer going to stop support for it.

This site was instrumentall in forcig M/S to continue support for 98 in a limitred form site.

Simply because M/S could not afford to have a major free supprot site for a M/S product in the market because other thing would of course grow from it.

The best thing to happen to the software world, would be for someone to out the M/S source code's then all the S/W coppyright problems would go away.

As to "Free Lunch" The stones showed how to beat the Corporate Giants, and in the process became a performing Giant like no other, The death of John Bonnaham (SP?) removed the only real opposition.

D.

Catweazle
03-12-2004, 04:54 AM
drb1, I'm with you totally, except for one little niggling thing.

If I rent a book from a library, I don't get to keep it ;)

I have to agree vehemently about the software aspect though. IP copyrights, in that respect, can only damage things and stifle any progress.

drb1
03-12-2004, 05:15 AM
> If I rent a book from a library, I don't get to keep
> it ;)
>


But you get to keep the knowelege inside it, and any notes you took from it, or anything you copied verbatum.

The verbatum part only becomes and issue if you then: lease, sell, lend, or publish and dont Acknoweledge the source.

I understand you have to eat, This area will I think allways be a minor issue, the current distribution model exebarates it out of all proportion

Craigb
03-12-2004, 07:02 AM
I think that p2p music swapping is an untapped resource for the musician. It means that musicians can get there music out there without having to rely on the big corporations. If a musician/band becomes popular, then people will pay to go and see them live. The more popular, the bigger the concert, the more they can charge for a ticket. That is where they can make there money. The recording industry will then be sidelined. Perhaps that is what they are afraid of. I know it take lots of money to run a concert, but at the end of the day, why do people make music. Is it to get rich or entertain people.?

Murray P
03-12-2004, 08:58 AM
Catweazle (et al) have a look at the links in this post (http://pressf1.pcworld.co.nz/thread.jsp?forum=1&thread=53925&message=345699&q=Music#345699). Mindawn pays the artists directly and, although I don't know what the norm is, I would guess that the payments in that scheme are far higher than what a label is willing to cough up.

Spout
03-12-2004, 09:39 AM
> A better analogy would be someone breaking into your house, scanning your TV, making an exact working duplicate and taking the duplicate away leaving you with your original working TV. Would you mind?

That analogy is flawed because if you steal music you're not stealling from me directly. You're stealing the right to reproduce the sound or visual. The creator of the music owns the right to reproduce it and has the right to charge anyone who wants to play it, usually that right is transferred to a new owner. A radio station pays each time a song is played, even a church has to include details of the license whenever song lyrics are displayed on an OHP or data projector.

I said above that you're not stealling from me directly, but you are increasing the amount that I have to pay if I want to own the CD, Video or DVD. There's no need to enter into a discussion about whether music, movies or software would drop in price if more people paid for them. But it makes economic sense that if a business dowsn't make as much as expected over then it will increase the price of the product to make up for the short fall.

Finally, even if 99.9% of people think that it's OK to use media without paying,, it stil doesn't make it morally right.

Captive
03-12-2004, 12:19 PM
Just because A occurs, C occurs, however if B doesnt factor into the equasion, and it may or may not sometimes then C may not be true. Advocates for the creators monopoly however may very much favour saying that because something is copied money is lost, which is not always the cost.

Morally your comparing it to theft, see above.

It would be nice if people didnt try and use primitive models which maybe certain agencies may portray as the correct one in light of what benefits they stand to make but one more in tune with what actually occurs.

You'll note legally its not theft, its copyright infringement, even the current law before modification to the new applicable level states that.

Spout
03-12-2004, 12:36 PM
> Advocates for the creators monopoly however may very much favour saying that because something is copied money is lost, which is not always the cost.

No, money is not lost - but profit which should a=have been generated or earned, is not generated or earned.

> You'll note legally its not theft, its copyright infringement

However you dress it up the fact of the matter is that if you take/use something to which you're not entitled to it's plain wrong.

Captive
03-12-2004, 12:55 PM
In a USA court of law, it was questioned how it was to be determined if this was wrong, it was stated the court did not have the decision to decide this but 'senate'

senate [group] n. assembly possessing high legislative powers

Consider that laws will evolve and change as they do.

When laws become maybe irrepresentative of real scenarios they will be modified to reflect changes that exist, or issues which need to be dealt with i would assume. I am by no means a politician though.

Captive
03-12-2004, 12:58 PM
It is also not guaranteed that in every instance money will be lost.

If people were to make a VHS of a TV program, does that mean the movie companies lost $30.00 because its gauranteed they would have bought it? be very clear here, does it --guarantee-- that?

then beyond that there is to consider what is in the best interest of society, what will produce the most gain. The laws are to serve the nation and the populace in its overall functioning.

This issue has only just begun, i would reckon that as computer usage and various people become more intune with the issue this will become an every increasing political issue

Captive
03-12-2004, 01:00 PM
legislature [group] n. persons who make or amend or repeal laws

....and i would assume this is something they may do often.

Captive
03-12-2004, 01:02 PM
Right now there will be so much support, as computer usage increases, as seems statistically probable the 'voting majority' may have issues they want to be seen debated in politics like i am highlighting. So whether this issue is now or in 5-10 years it seems it will have an increasing role now and in the future.

Captive
03-12-2004, 01:04 PM
The knowledge of the past evolves to the knowledge of the future, not everyone evolves at the same time or the same way, but through increased iterations people may increase their knowledge and it seems that perception may also increase with time, as this occurs it seems that people will become aware of new thoughts of how instances of life should and changes may occur.

Spout
03-12-2004, 01:17 PM
We've already agreed that money has not been lost. I don't even think that losing money is the issue anyway.

Actually, this mass acceptance of lower moral standards is just another indication of "the unravelling of the moral fabric of society".

50 years ago a girl that had a child out of wedlock would have been shunned by society.
50 years ago a bloke caught in bed with another bloke would have been shunned by society.
50 years ago a someone who illegally used something the did not own would have been shunned by society.
There was even a time when a murderer would have been hanged here in NZ.

So this is just a continuation of the trend. I not judging whether it's right ot wrong. It amazes me that most people wouldn't consider stealling from a shop or someones house, but they're content to copy a CD even though they know that it's wrong. Some people dress it up to make them look or feel better about it, but it's morally accepted that if there is usually a charge for something, and you deliberately avoid paying then you're in the wrong.

Captive
03-12-2004, 01:23 PM
Okay spout your highlight examples you want to, fair enough

Spout do you reckon that if someone copies a program to VHS, maybe to watch later, which in various is not supported by copyright law, is wrong?

What if i named 3 educational facilities, which i could, that tried to further education by using training material, To produce more gains for society, maybe not in someones pocket but to make a society more able to perform better for itself... What is better: A person wallet or the functioning of societies ability to perform? please answer with those two specifics: is it better for the persons wallet or societies ability to perform.

Thank you for messaging me, i mean part of this is that the idea has to be discussed, i guess like it would in parliment, but then there debates could be quite different to ours i would guess, although i cannot gaurantee that

Captive
03-12-2004, 01:38 PM
Also again, in a democracy i would assume society makes the laws/lawmakers to determine what they think should be right, and this may change over time, in the instances where you highlight examples of things which some may correlate negatively but if you were to try and show disaccceptance that would be a good example, if i was to highlight more education, better worth of New Zealander's to better perform jobs then i guess that would be another consideratoin to be made.

Captive
03-12-2004, 02:02 PM
Not complying to one person or a group of persons 'Moral Standard' when analysed may actually be complying to a group of others 'Moral Standards' which is how the laws may partly be determined, this may change over time.

Please focus on this issue also and not examples outside of Copyright, as this topic and issue i wish to raise is in regards to the copyright issue and its application. If you have other issues you wish to discuss, then there is the option to start other threads for such a discussion.