Combating copyright infringement

[rlr149]

not really, its wishful thinking at its worst to think that you will get paid for doing something you love, and that you won't have to make sacrifices to achieve it, wasn't one of atomic kitten a checkout girl before they made it big?(bad example from an 'artistic' point of view but hopefully you get my point )

and having a proper job will not stop you writing music in your spare time if it really is 'all about the music' to you

[Jill_Ion]

Wasn't trying to take a stab at you with the 'nefarious' crack, I just never get to use that word as often as i'd like.

You're right. We don't get to use cool words like "nefarious" enough!

Please know I'm not judging anyone, especially our Gate brothers and sisters in Australia, who are denied the beauty that is SGA on regular TV.

Well, at least I'm trying to judge tooooo much!

(Get it? Chris Judge? LOL!)

[Colonel Sharp]

Control the ISPs and tell them to lock out those countries (which usually have specific IP groupings for the area)..

Well, right, because the internet is a series of tubes....

So if something is digitized, it doesn't really exist? I disagree. There's a whole area of the law called intellectual property. A photographer can take a digital photo, and the file is his property. He has all of the rights associated with that image, whether it's ever printed or not.

When one goes out and downloads songs for free rather than paying for them, he/she is depriving the musicians of their rightful income. They, ultimately, are "the source" that is being deprived.

+1

[Durgia]

The whole idea of Copyright Infringement on intellectual property is rather silly. If Einstein was alive today he would sue us all for using the term E=mc^2 without his express written consent.

I must agree with the person that says if there was no loss there is no theft. The owners of the TV shows could not possibly have made money off the people downloading the shows. They probably do in fact make money through DVD sales, just as musicians make money from concerts filled with people playing "stolen" mp3's.

if people cannot make enough money to support themselves off music, tv whatever, then they are in the wrong business. The weaker aspects of any market are always weeded out through a variety of processes which the internet is just the latest incarnation.

If somebody tries to sell the material, that is different; but if there is no potential for profit, there is no potential for loss, and no potential for theft.

[FallenAngelII]

For the love of the Wii, illegal downloading helps more than it hurts.

Do you know where I would be if it weren't for illegal downloads? Not watching either Stargate, that's where.

Until a little over a year ago, the longest Sweden had ever come in Stargate was season 1 of Stargate SG-1 (I think). And that was years and years ago. They aired season 1, took a break, re-aired it all and then stopped airing it indefinitely.

And then in the summer of 2004, a friend of mine told me about this nifty show called Stargate Atlantis and I was, like, "What? There's a spinoff?". He showed me two episodes (1x03 and 1x04 or something) and I got instantly hooked. When I got back home, I downloaded the rest that was out at the time. Within months, I also downloaded season 8 of SG-1 and then the rest of it.

Since then, I have purchased Stargate DVDs and even contemplated attending Stargate cons in England but they are always held at inconvenient times.

Illegal downloading doesn't hurt the franchise much. Very few of the people who download stuff would've bought the same stuff had they not been able to download it.

They might not be rich enough. They might not care enough to buy it but enough to watch it. Who knows? Very few people who download would've bought stuff had they not been able to watch/listen to it illegally.

Meanwhile, those who stick with the franchise will end up buying Stargate stuff. I'd buy the complete boxset if the packaging didn't suck.

[1138]

So if something is digitized, it doesn't really exist? I disagree. There's a whole area of the law called intellectual property. A photographer can take a digital photo, and the file is his property. He has all of the rights associated with that image, whether it's ever printed or not.

The idea that copyright infringement is theft is really dishonest on the part of the intellectual property (IP) owners. All licensing agreements for IP specifically tell you that you do not own the intellectual property being licensed to you - i.e. you only get a license to use it. You don't own it. The copy you have in your possession is not the IP, it's just a convenient representation of it that allows you to access it when you want to. What you bought is a license to use it.

But by their very nature, licenses can't be stolen. A license is an intangible right to access the copyrighted material. You can't steal someone else's license to use IP any more than you can steal your older brother's permission to drive your parents' car. You could steal the car physically, but the IP is not like a car at all - only the original IP owner actually owns the IP and the only thing you get is permission to access it. The car itself, on the other hand, is indeed owned by your parents, so you can steal it from them.

So no, copyright infringement is not theft.

When one goes out and downloads songs for free rather than paying for them, he/she is depriving the musicians of their rightful income. They, ultimately, are "the source" that is being deprived.

In Canada, every single CD-R disc I buy, whether I use it for copying music or not, has a $0.21 levy on it. This levy is used to pay the recording industry to compensate them for "private copying" losses. When I buy 50 blank CDs to store my own work, I have to pay $10.5 to the industry. That is depriving me of my money without any advantage being conferred to me. Therefore, I have no problems with "free" music download sites and get quite displeased if someone tries to shut them down. In effect, the levy being imposed on all blank CDs grants me a moral right to download a certain amount music.

[rlr149]

Spoiler:

The idea that copyright infringement is theft is really dishonest on the part of the intellectual property (IP) owners. All licensing agreements for IP specifically tell you that you do not own the intellectual property being licensed to you - i.e. you only get a license to use it. You don't own it. The copy you have in your possession is not the IP, it's just a convenient representation of it that allows you to access it when you want to. What you bought is a license to use it.

But by their very nature, licenses can't be stolen. A license is an intangible right to access the copyrighted material. You can't steal someone else's license to use IP any more than you can steal your older brother's permission to drive your parents' car. You could steal the car physically, but the IP is not like a car at all - only the original IP owner actually owns the IP and the only thing you get is permission to access it. The car itself, on the other hand, is indeed owned by your parents, so you can steal it from them.

So no, copyright infringement is not theft.



In Canada, every single CD-R disc I buy, whether I use it for copying music or not, has a $0.21 levy on it. This levy is used to pay the recording industry to compensate them for "private copying" losses. When I buy 50 blank CDs to store my own work, I have to pay $10.5 to the industry. That is depriving me of my money without any advantage being conferred to me. Therefore, I have no problems with "free" music download sites and get quite displeased if someone tries to shut them down.

that sucks! also, why do you have to pay royalties to a performer AGAIN if you buy another copy of the same film? (i own 'Armageddon' on video and dvd), i've already paid for the right to watch it whenever i please, but the performers haven't actually done any more work!! i should only be paying for the dvd production costs

[garhkal]

But let's all remember that we can't call it "stealing".

Hence why i put it in quotes... To me it equates to stealing.. And on many DVDs now, when they do their 'anti pirating' schpeel, they mention "you wold not steal a car, you would not steal a purse, well downloading is stealing" and so on...

Considering that I have no plans whatsoever to ever buy the DVD set, and neither MGM nor Sci-Fi has taken a loss from my missing the airing on television in the US, where is the theft? In what way have I, or the thousands like me, had any negative affect on Stargate?

To me though since you mentionedyou never have any intent of buyin it cause you do download it, that is causing them to take a loss..

But what if the nefarious internet pirate never intended to purchase the song through normal channels? What he or she had no interest in acquiring the song, but decided to download it on a lark? If there was no intention to buy, then you can't argue that the money in their pocket would have ever found its way to the song artist (well, let's be realistic, the song distributor). Therefore, no loss has been made, only a gain on the side of the internet-savvy individual.

Which to me IS the same as theft. They never had any intent to purchase it, so aquired it without buying it..

If it isn't worth spending hard-earned money on, then it shouldn't have any value or be worth their time, right? I just don't see the "I wasn't going to buy it anyway, so it's OK for me to take it" argument as valid.

Well said jill.. if it is not meaningful enough to you to buy it, why download it??
If it is important enough to get, you should buy it.

For me, I have absolutely no options. Living in Australia, I can't watch the first run or even get access to iTunes or Amazon.com distribution

How is that/?? Does austrailia ban those sites? Does not amazon ship to austrailia?

Who are you? the FBI ? who cares if episodes are leaked,

We don't have to be law enforcement to not want to see criminals flourish..

erm, isn't that against the whole idea of the 'internet'

Tell that to a lot of the countries in the mid east, or far east where they DO control what you can and cannot access... Take when i was in Bahrain. I could go to many of my gaming sites, store sites and such, but cannot go to WWE.COM due to the "lewid" pictures of the ladies in bikiniis..

They probably do in fact make money through DVD sales

Which is our point. they make money when you buy it, but do not when you just download.. And with the fact a good percentage of those who DO download (well going off the percentage of the population i know who engages in downloading) do not buy it later, that means those people are not purchasing their product but still getting it.

Do you know where I would be if it weren't for illegal downloads? Not watching either Stargate, that's where.

Not trying to be disrespectful, but there are a lot of things I don’t watch or read/play etc cause I don’t have access to them. But that, like not having enough money imo is not a good reason to break the law.

[rlr149]

Well said jill.. if it is not meaningful enough to you to buy it, why download it??
If it is important enough to get, you should buy it.

how do we know if its worth buying if we don't watch it, its not that difficult really, when i buy a car i expect to drive it first, same thing............and don't say 'trailers' because they aren't an accurate representation of the entire film, just what some marketing exec thinks will sell more units. "explosions make better trailers"

How is that/?? Does austrailia ban those sites? Does not amazon ship to austrailia?

not banned but it won't let you download episodes due to your IP address (unless you have an IP changer/proxy address)

Tell that to a lot of the countries in the mid east, or far east where they DO control what you can and cannot access... Take when i was in Bahrain. I could go to many of my gaming sites, store sites and such, but cannot go to WWE.COM due to the "lewid" pictures of the ladies in bikiniis..

fine example the middle east, because they're not known for their extremely religious mentality and p*** poor record in human rights

Not trying to be disrespectful, but there are a lot of things I don’t watch or read/play etc cause I don’t have access to them. But that, like not having enough money imo is not a good reason to break the law.

i break the law by not practicing my archery in front of the town hall once a month(maybe a week), if i did however, pretty sure i'd be arrested for a 'breach of the peace' and 'possession of a lethal weapon'

sometimes the law is an ass and needs breaking to show how out of order it is ('poll tax' springs to mind) take TV licensing in the UK, just owning a tv means you have to pay £140 a year, because you *CAN* receive BBC ( my tv is only plugged into my XBOX360, i still HAVE to pay for 2 channels that i have no choice in blocking, the remaining 3 channels are paid for with advertising) to me, that is theft!! and if its good enough for them then don't be surprised when we decide that we've been shafted for too long.

[Agent_Dark]

How is that/?? Does austrailia ban those sites? Does not amazon ship to austrailia?

no offence, but maybe you should learn a bit more about teh whole situation first. iTunes and Amazon Unbox only sell stargate (and most US produced shows) to US customers only. Anyone outside the US can't buy those shows. They do that because the studio that makes the show has licensed broadcasters overseas to distribute that show and if the viewers of those overseas broadcasters could get the episodes before they air, then what was the point of that broadcaster paying money to get rights to air it in the first place?
Of course, then the problem comes that those overseas broadcasters lag the airing of the shows behind teh US. It's getting better in Australia; the networks are finally starting to realise that people will download episodes because they can't be arsed waiting 6+ months for them to air here. But that's generally only for the 'big' shows (shows that would be classed as 'Network Shows' in the US I believe - House, CSI, Lost, Prison Break, Sarah Connor Chronicles etc etc). Stargate and BSG for example don't rate very well in Aus and are so either shelved or relegated to late night timeslots and, in alot of cases, aired a year or so after they show in the US. It's kinda hard to be an fan of the show when everyone on the forums are talking about an episode that won't air in Australia until next year.
So people download them. What's the big deal? If the Australian networks that had the airing rights were so concerned about that then they wouldn't dick around the fans of that show. And the people who are fans get to stay current with the rest of the fans (read American fans) who are talking about the episodes online. And why should Americans care at all? SciFi don't give a rat's arse, because they are only concerned about the US ratings, which is what determines the show's fate. MGM might be concerned since they are the ones that make money from licensing the show overseas, but considering how well the DVD's sell here (stargate boxsets are always bestsellers when they are released) they probably don't care anyway. Besides, there's probably a strong argument to be made that Australian viewers downloading the shows has a strong positive impact on the DVD sales. Especially considering the DVD boxsets tend to be released before the season even airs on TV here...

[Amaunet]

I think that a majority of those who do illegally download stargate do go out and buy the boxsets when they do come out, well they do in Aus anyway and I don't have a problem with it if they're prepared to pay later on

[Jill_Ion]

how do we know if its worth buying if we don't watch it, its not that difficult really, when i buy a car i expect to drive it first, same thing............and don't say 'trailers' because they aren't an accurate representation of the entire film, just what some marketing exec thinks will sell more units. "explosions make better trailers"

But then, based upon this statement, it's OK to sneak into a theater and watch a movie, and after watching it you get to decide whether or not you want to pay the entry fee? I've gone and seen movies or watch TV shows based upon commercials or trailers. Sometimes I've liked them and sometimes not. Life is a gamble, eh? There's no guarantee the consumer will like it.

Yes, we get to test drive a car, but we usually don't get to test drive art, food, books, etc.

(Yes, we can read a couple of pages of a book in a bookstore, but I don't think we can sit there and read the entire 500 pages at the store, and then decide whether or not we want to buy it. That's why we have libraries...and video stores...and appetizers.)

[Myles]

But then, based upon this statement, it's OK to sneak into a theater and watch a movie, and after watching it you get to decide whether or not you want to pay the entry fee? I've gone and seen movies or watch TV shows based upon commercials or trailers. Sometimes I've liked them and sometimes not. Life is a gamble, eh? There's no guarantee the consumer will like it.

Yes, we get to test drive a car, but we usually don't get to test drive art, food, books, etc.

(Yes, we can read a couple of pages of a book in a bookstore, but I don't think we can sit there and read the entire 500 pages at the store, and then decide whether or not we want to buy it. That's why we have libraries...and video stores...and appetizers.)

In nice book stores, Barnes & Noble, ect, I've sat and read a book for 6 hours without anyone bothering me. But that's besides the fact though, cuz I bought the book anyways.

Downloading is very much a gray area. How much does it hurt the companies and artists? Not much. There are still millions of CDs and DVDs sold and the reason TV ratings are down certainly isn't illegal downloading. And the small artists that are always talked about gain more from the spread of thier music via downloading then they lose from it. It comes down to whether you believe it is stealing and stealing whatsoever is wrong.

[Jill_Ion]

The idea that copyright infringement is theft is really dishonest on the part of the intellectual property (IP) owners. All licensing agreements for IP specifically tell you that you do not own the intellectual property being licensed to you - i.e. you only get a license to use it. You don't own it. The copy you have in your possession is not the IP, it's just a convenient representation of it that allows you to access it when you want to. What you bought is a license to use it.

But by their very nature, licenses can't be stolen. A license is an intangible right to access the copyrighted material. You can't steal someone else's license to use IP any more than you can steal your older brother's permission to drive your parents' car. You could steal the car physically, but the IP is not like a car at all - only the original IP owner actually owns the IP and the only thing you get is permission to access it. The car itself, on the other hand, is indeed owned by your parents, so you can steal it from them.

So no, copyright infringement is not theft.



In Canada, every single CD-R disc I buy, whether I use it for copying music or not, has a $0.21 levy on it. This levy is used to pay the recording industry to compensate them for "private copying" losses. When I buy 50 blank CDs to store my own work, I have to pay $10.5 to the industry. That is depriving me of my money without any advantage being conferred to me. Therefore, I have no problems with "free" music download sites and get quite displeased if someone tries to shut them down. In effect, the levy being imposed on all blank CDs grants me a moral right to download a certain amount music.

I see what you're saying, but I disagree with "The idea that copyright infringement is theft is really dishonest on the part of the intellectual property (IP) owners." You make a valid argument, but I just disagree. Unfortunately, I don't have time to fully explain my POV - gotta get to work.

As for paying extra for blank discs, I think we have the same in the US. It's been that way since blank audio and videotapes came out. At least I read that the record/movie companies wanted to levy blank media. (I don't have time to fully research this.) I don't agree with it, but it is what it is.

I did very much disagree with the record companies who wanted add a levy to purchase of used CDs and records. I figured the record companies had already been paid for the product purchase. They didn't need to be paid again every time a used product exchanged hands.

[rlr149]

But then, based upon this statement, it's OK to sneak into a theater and watch a movie, and after watching it you get to decide whether or not you want to pay the entry fee? I've gone and seen movies or watch TV shows based upon commercials or trailers. Sometimes I've liked them and sometimes not. Life is a gamble, eh? There's no guarantee the consumer will like it.

pay what its worth - radiohead album now thats brilliant in my book. and i hear they're doing pretty well out of it too

life is a gamble, they've been gambling for years thinking that no one would notice the duplicate royalties for a single 'viewer', the ridiculous price differences depending on location, and the multiple release dates across the world to increase the income off it ...............doesn't mean i can't attempt to even the odds though

Yes, we get to test drive a car, but we usually don't get to test drive art, food, books, etc.

(Yes, we can read a couple of pages of a book in a bookstore, but I don't think we can sit there and read the entire 500 pages at the store, and then decide whether or not we want to buy it. That's why we have libraries...and video stores...and appetizers.)

if you buy 'art' sight unseen, then this conversation is over due to a complete lack of common sense/intelligence on your part
myles has already mentioned 'barnes and noble', they have built in coffee shops and couches for readers , the only time i've ever been asked to leave a bookshop was when it was closing. libraries in the UK are free to use. supermarkets occasionally have little booths about where you can try a smidgen of whatever new product is out........... maybe its time for you to re-evaluate what you think

i don't do cinema, its not overly comfy, theres always a bizarre stain on the seat, people can't hold their mouth or bladder for 2 hours, the snacks are stupidly overpriced, and its just not convenient/possible given my working hours, i'm not gonna feel guilty about watching something in far better surroundings.

As for paying extra for blank discs, I think we have the same in the US. It's been that way since blank audio and videotapes came out. At least I read that the record/movie companies wanted to levy blank media. (I don't have time to fully research this.) I don't agree with it, but it is what it is.

i don't agree with cruelty to animals, however i will stop it when i see it

I did very much disagree with the record companies who wanted add a levy to purchase of used CDs and records. I figured the record companies had already been paid for the product purchase. They didn't need to be paid again every time a used product exchanged hands.

see post #52