Combating copyright infringement

[garhkal]

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"

RENT THEM.. It is what i do with books and movies i don't know anythng about before i decide if i want to buy them and add them into my collection..

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

That is very strange..

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

Too true..

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'

Why? Is there a law where you are at that requires all people practice archery in front of the town hall??

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

Actually, with the TV thing. If you can show you have no antenna (eg put a plug or RTV over the antenna jack and just have a VCR/DVD player or the like hooked up) you don't have to pay. I know from BOTH times i was stationed there.

( 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.

I do agree that the TV licence thing in England is getting to be a rip off especially since most of the stuff on the BBC is either reruns or crap....

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.

That is a great Analogy..

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.

That is one of the things i feel that B&N has going for it. They almost encourage people to sit around reading the books before they buy them..

the snacks are stupidly overpriced

I will give you that. Most cinema's i have been in the past 4-5 years, the cost of entrance is almost less than a medium popcorn and a medium drink... Which is why these days i don't buy any food/drink there..

[rlr149]

RENT THEM.. It is what i do with books and movies i don't know anythng about before i decide if i want to buy them and add them into my collection..

so i have to pay the royalties twice, you don't pay a builder twice for a single job unless you're an idiot

That is very strange..

my mother who lives in the states can't watch that BBC iplayer thing for the same reason

Why? Is there a law where you are at that requires all people practice archery in front of the town hall??

no, only males between certain ages, its an ancient law to maintain a militia/army for the king, (or some such) but it does still apply

Actually, with the TV thing. If you can show you have no antenna (eg put a plug or RTV over the antenna jack and just have a VCR/DVD player or the like hooked up) you don't have to pay. I know from BOTH times i was stationed there.

when was that? they tried to charge my mother after she'd been living in the states for 5 years, the house here was empty, went to court and everything!

I do agree that the TV licence thing in England is getting to be a rip off especially since most of the stuff on the BBC is either reruns or crap....

agreed, but then i have to pay for cable/sky as well so i can watch sga, its not on BBC (i think they just started showing season 1 on channel5, at 4-5am)

I will give you that. Most cinema's i have been in the past 4-5 years, the cost of entrance is almost less than a medium popcorn and a medium drink... Which is why these days i don't buy any food/drink there..

but at my local fleapit, you're not allowed to take you're own stuff in either, so screw em i say i'll sit in comfort, with a clean toilet nearby, popcorn without too much salt and a drink thats not watered down

[The_Carpenter]

no, only males between certain ages, its an ancient law to maintain a militia/army for the king, (or some such) but it does still apply

And that's not the strangest one! for example in York it is legal to shot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow on any day other than a Sunday!

And you can be put in the village stocks for 24 hours for breaking a boiled egg at the sharp end!

yep we have crazy laws

[Durgia]

I heard on the news tonight that in Canada they are lobbying (they being record labels) to charge $5 a month to anybody that has internet access that would be paid as a royalty. Now I find that 10x more absurd then illegal downloads considering that something like 80% of the people with internet only use it for email. 10% of the net generates the majority of all traffic and I assume a similar proportion for illegal downloads, so why do the record labels think they should charge every person with internet $5 a month?

I think the argument is somewhat moot anyway. No matter what the government or big corps do, it won't stop people from finding what they are looking for on the net.

Instead of fighting over what is right and wrong with an antiquated legal structure perhaps the tv/record companies should think how to change the way they do business to make more $$. Change is inevitable and slapping fees, taxes and laws against property that the general population believes should be widely available has never turned out well.

[1138]

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

There are a lot of extremely dishonest practices that the industry engages in.

The copyright owners would like you to think that the DVD is a separate work since it is higher resolution. That in itself isn't too bad, since the DVD is a better copy of the movie. What's really unreasonable is that they'd even like to charge you whenever you rip the DVD so you can watch it on your media server. They've made lots of progress in this area. They've made it illegal in the US to watch a legally bought DVD on the Linux operating system because a DVD decryption algorithm must be used to get past the copy protection which is not supported on Linux (you also need the decryption to rip the DVDs to a video file). Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), circumventing copy protection is illegal, regardless of whether the circumvention was used for a non-infringing purpose. So forget about legally ripping the DVD so that you can privately view it on your PSP or iPod, you're gonna have to buy a new version for each device. That is the type of legislation that the US has enacted.

And don't get me started on region codes. If I legally bought a DVD in Asia, I should be allowed to watch it in Canada. But no, I need to buy a new DVD player from Asia or another Region 1 DVD. To anyone rejoicing the victory of Blu-Ray over HD-DVD, look forward to more years of region coding and digital rights management (such as the ability to shut down your Blu-Ray player over the network just because the industry thinks that the players aren't being used according to the license). HD-DVD didn't have region codes whereas Blu-Ray did.

And how about HDCP technology? This is for any HD content. Basically, it says that unless your monitor or TV has copy protection built in, you can't view HD content in full resolution. So millions of perfectly good HD capable monitors have to be replaced just because the industry says so. You even need to get a new video card that supports HDCP. This is technology that does not add value to you as a consumer (you are, in effect, paying a lot more money to buy an inferior product that's crippled with restrictions), but you are required to buy it if you want the newest discs simply because the industry wants more control. And remember, it's illegal under the DMCA to break the HDCP copy protection so that you can use it on your perfectly good but non-HDCP monitor.

A lot of the extreme unfair practices are happening in the US but I think Canada is trying to enact similar legislation, although the terms are a bit more reasonable. And the HDCP / region coding stuff applies everywhere.

It would be great if everyone boycotted the industry but people love their movies too much for that to work. The industry is making money in spite of all these restrictions, which, ironically, proves that copyright infringement isn't that big a deal.

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.

Why do you disagree? I'm quite curious. This is what the copyright owners do: When they sell something to you, it's an intangible right that is being licensed. It's made extremely clear in the license agreements. But when you violate the license, they want you to think that it's an actual good being stolen even though permission to use something is impossible to steal. They know that it isn't theft, they just market it as theft to make it seem sinister. That is why copyright infringement is called piracy (a term invented by the industry) even though it has nothing to do with actual pirates. Remember, real pirates kill and plunder. Downloading an MP3 is hardly deserving of that title.

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.

The US levy only applies to blank CDs marked CD Audio, so regular users who buy normal blank CDs aren't subsidizing the industry. In Canada, all blank CDs are levied. So it is an entirely different situation.

[BloomGate]

There are certainly some interesting points brought up in this thread. I would say that the key issue in virtually everything brought up here is determining the "fair market value" of time.

For those that are downloading the episodes from other countries, it's mostly a matter of how quickly they get to see the episodes on TV.

For those that are downloading the episodes in the US, it's whether they want to wait for the DVDs to come out and bother to check them out from their local library. (If your library doesn't have them, then contact your local librarian - petitions work quite well in this case.)

I think a difference needs to be noted that when it comes to downloading, that music and movies should be considered much differently than TV shows. Here in the US, we get most TV for free. An antenna and a VCR will cover most shows. SG1/A both air in syndication on these free channels - just not right away. I get it that downloading music and movies can conceivably cut into sales in those cases. However, when it comes to TV shows, most of them are free to the consumer at one point or another. I find it difficult to understand how they expect to earn money from something that has already been given away for free to the consumer. (This is where music and movies differ specifically)

So, how much should it be worth to the producers of a show (or the owners of the intellectual property more accurately) for people to see things sooner rather than later? That's where the line gets blurred between sales and marketing. There have been a few examples of shows that got much better ratings AFTER they were available for free on the internet (BSG is one example). I agree that the studios should have the right to control that, but the argument that episodes being online for free can help the popularity of a show, is a valid one.

I'm not a big downloader of things, but I have on 3 occasions downloaded episodes of SG1/A. In each instance, I was away from home at the time the show was broadcast, and my recording didn't happen. Once it was because the power went out in my neighborhood, once was because the cable went out in my neighborhood, and once it was because my DVR (crappy equipment provided by my cable company) decided to have a nervous breakdown and lose everything. Now in those instances, should I have to wait for them to be broadcast again or for them to be released on DVD before I can see them? I don't think that would be fair since I pay for my cable and in 2 of the 3 instances, it was their fault. I also don't think that the owners of the intellectual property (much less a jury of my peers) would have an issue with me downloading those episodes either.

If you can accept that in certain circumstances that downloading episodes of TV shows is perfectly ethical, I think the question should actually be where to draw the line. That's what the networks don't want people to think about. Once you realize that it's all available for free anyway, they wouldn't stand a whelk's chance in a supernova in court if they tried to sue anyone like the music and movie industries have.

[garhkal]

so i have to pay the royalties twice, you don't pay a builder twice for a single job unless you're an idiot

You don't pay royalties on rentals. The store who PURCHASED the disks to rent out did. It is a one time thing.

my mother who lives in the states can't watch that BBC iplayer thing for the same reason

That is strange..

no, only males between certain ages, its an ancient law to maintain a militia/army for the king, (or some such) but it does still apply

interesting...

when was that? they tried to charge my mother after she'd been living in the states for 5 years, the house here was empty, went to court and everything!

First time was back in 97-99, when i was stationed at St Mawgan, near Newquay Cornwall. Second time was when i was stationed in london, 02-05.

agreed, but then i have to pay for cable/sky as well so i can watch sga, its not on BBC (i think they just started showing season 1 on channel5, at 4-5am)

That is one thing i have hated about the way it is done. Even whe you only get cable, you still pay....

And don't get me started on region codes. If I legally bought a DVD in Asia, I should be allowed to watch it in Canada. But no, I need to buy a new DVD player from Asia or another Region 1 DVD. To anyone rejoicing the victory of Blu-Ray over HD-DVD, look forward to more years of region coding and digital rights management (such as the ability to shut down your Blu-Ray player over the network just because the industry thinks that the players aren't being used according to the license). HD-DVD didn't have region codes whereas Blu-Ray did.

I have never understood the region thing, OR agreed with it.

If you can accept that in certain circumstances that downloading episodes of TV shows is perfectly ethical, I think the question should actually be where to draw the line.

It is like with theft. A while back on another board, we had a massive discussion about all the thefts/looting of food, clothing etc after Katrina.. Many who were fully against theft, we all for people looting in that situation, while others would shoot anyone thieving, even those doing it for food..

[Durgia]

I guess in a perfect world the networks would simultaneously broadcast tv shows over the internet as they are showing on TV. They could include their advertising and track regional viewers easily. I imagine that within 10 years this will be happening. In todays world tv is one thing that is extremely global, and a good network would take advantage of that.

[BloomGate]

It is like with theft. A while back on another board, we had a massive discussion about all the thefts/looting of food, clothing etc after Katrina.. Many who were fully against theft, we all for people looting in that situation, while others would shoot anyone thieving, even those doing it for food..

No, this is entirely different. Downloading TV shows (or even movies or music) is not theft pure and simple. The reason I can say that absolutely is because under no circumstances can they send the police to your house to arrest you. Copyright infringement is a civil matter not criminal. They would have to sue someone and get a judgement against them before anything could happen. Period. Theft is a legal term and this ain't it.

BECAUSE it's a civil matter, there are no absolutes. Corporations can spew propaganda all over the place, but it's technically not illegal until they get a judgement against you and there is no precedent regarding downloading of TV shows in the US either. My argument is the same under "fair use" just like if my power went out and I borrowed a videotape from a friend of a show I missed. Sure, someone could sue us for copyright infringement for that too, but I seriously doubt that any jury in the US would render a judgement against us.

[SylvreWolfe]

Just because it is civil does not mean it is not theft. It is theft, you are taking something that does not belong to you, to the detriment of someone else.
Second, if you take enough of it then yes a jury will award the companies. It has been done several times.

[rlr149]

You don't pay royalties on rentals. The store who PURCHASED the disks to rent out did. It is a one time thing.

they're not paying it out of the goodness of their heart, they expect to make it back through my(and others) rental payment, i'm still paying it twice, just through a 3rd party

First time was back in 97-99, when i was stationed at St Mawgan, near Newquay Cornwall. Second time was when i was stationed in london, 02-05.

might be different for the forces then, i know my brother gets all kind of special deals when he shows his id, because my mother is in the states i had to go to court to tell them the house was empty, she got a letter from some official dude at her end to say she was living there, and it was the only thing that prevented the £1000 fine, wouldn't accept my say so

[ToasterOnFire]

I pay for cable channels, including skiffy. I do not have a Nielsen box, ergo I have zero effect on the ratings. What's the difference if I watch an ep of SGA live vs. DVRing the ep and watching it later vs. downloading the ep the next day?

Oh, and please explain to me how downloading in this instance would be theft.

[rlr149]

Just because it is civil does not mean it is not theft. It is theft, you are taking something that does not belong to you, to the detriment of someone else.

sometimes to the detriment of someone else. i have yet to see a starving tv producer/director/actor in a major show, it almost certainly is detrimental to unsigned musicians though, but i don't have any real interest in music to that degree, i don't look for new music in shops or online so i have no impact there.

Second, if you take enough of it then yes a jury will award the companies. It has been done several times.

will!!!, unless they side with us and agree its a rip off

[1138]

Just because it is civil does not mean it is not theft. It is theft, you are taking something that does not belong to you, to the detriment of someone else.
Second, if you take enough of it then yes a jury will award the companies. It has been done several times.

Untrue. If it's a civil copyright infringement, it cannot be theft because theft is a criminal act. This is by definition. If it's a criminal copyright infringement, it is still not theft because copyright and theft are defined under an entirely different set of laws. This is again by definition. There can be no arguing about this; the very definition of the terms means copyright infringement cannot be theft.

When you infringe on a copyright, you are not taking anything. You are simply accessing the information without a license. You cannot take someone's permission to do something, which is the only thing that is ever sold when it comes to intellectual property. What happens when someone infringes on a copyright is that it reduces the market value of the intellectual property. But merely reducing the market value of something isn't stealing. A marketing campaign against a company's products can reduce the value of the products but you can't charge the marketers with theft.

As another example, consider copyrighted works that are available for free. This includes free software or perhaps CG artwork available on the internet. Just because it's distributed for free does not mean it has no copyright. For both software and artwork, there are terms of use: let's say the artwork is licensed such that you can view it but not offer it on your website without permission. If someone violates that license and does offer the picture on their website, they did not take anything from the artist. The artist lost no money (since the artwork was free) nor did they lose any material involved in the creation of the artwork (digital bits are copied). They also don't necessarily lose the credit associated with the image (let's assume the violator kept the copyright notice on the image with the artists' name). Legally, it is still copyright infringement and has the same status as copying a song or movie. But you'd be hard pressed to call it theft since no one lost anything. The violator is simply using the work without permission, not stealing.

[BloomGate]

Just because it is civil does not mean it is not theft. It is theft, you are taking something that does not belong to you, to the detriment of someone else.
Second, if you take enough of it then yes a jury will award the companies. It has been done several times.

I'm referring to the legal definition of theft in the US. If we're talking about something being illegal, then it follows logically that we should be using the legal definition. Even without getting out law books, here's the dictionary definition:

1 a: the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
2obsolete : something stolen
3: a stolen base in baseball

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theft

The definition above clearly indicates that property needs to be involved for the use of the term 'theft' to be valid and that the more simplistic definition is obsolete. Also note the distinction that it says that the rightful owner needs to be deprived his property and not potential profits from it for the term to be valid.

I don't wish to get into a semantic discussion if it's because we are from different parts of the world where certain words have different meanings. At that point we might as well argue whether the thing at the back of a car where you can store things is a boot or a trunk.

Your second point is well taken. Remember, I'm not advocating downloading TV shows or suggesting that it's ethically right. However, your point that if one does it enough that they will sue, indicates that there certainly is a grey area.

I also challenge whether anyone has ever been successfully sued in the US for downloading TV shows. Please find and provide a link if you believe otherwise. For any lawsuit to be successful, the plaintiff has to demonstrate that the defendant's actions deprived them of rightful income. That would be really tough to do when the shows are broadcast for free to the consumer in the first place. The only other way to possibly to show that they lost any money by someone downloading TV shows, would be to show that the downloading caused a reduction in revenue due to decreased ratings. However, unless the downloader is in a Nielsen family there is no foundation that the downloader's actions individually affected the ratings at all.

I get that people don't want others to download SG1/A because they are afraid that it might somehow contribute to getting their favorite shows cancelled. I can tell you not to worry. Unless the downloaders are Nielsen families, it has zero effect on the ratings at all.

The problem is in the TV network's business model. Someone produces a TV show. They charge money to a network for the right to broadcast it. The network then charges advertisers for the right to air commercials during the show. The networks show a profit based on how much more they can charge for the advertising than they pay for the right to air the show. The problem shows up when there are over 100 channels available (competition) and people start watching the shows in ways that deny them the ratings they need to charge more for advertising. (timeshifting and downloading)

In all reality, if people are concerned about the show getting cancelled due to downloading, I suggest you go on a campaign to get people to stop recording SGA on their DVRs and start watching it live. That would up the ratings (the single thing that determines the profitability for the show) and guarantee that it continues. That would actually be a far more effective way to help the show than complaining about downloading. Quite simply, if someone downloading the show doesn't have access to watching the show when it's on, there is no possible way that they could hurt the show in any way shape or form by downloading it.