Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Tuesday April 24 2018, @01:23AM   Printer-friendly
from the bittpirate dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

For the past several years, copyright holders in the US and Europe have been trying to reach out to file-sharers in an effort to change their habits.

Whether via high-profile publicity lawsuits or a simple email, it's hoped that by letting people know they aren't anonymous, they'll stop pirating and buy more content instead.

Traditionally, most ISPs haven't been that keen on passing infringement notices on. However, the BMG v Cox lawsuit seems to have made a big difference, with a growing number of ISPs now visibly warning their users that they operate a repeat infringer policy.

But perhaps the big question is how seriously users take these warnings because – let's face it – that's the entire point of their existence.

Sixty-five thousand five hundred thirty-five but if they sent one more I'd start again.

Source: https://torrentfreak.com/how-many-piracy-warnings-would-get-you-to-stop-180422/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 24 2018, @02:00AM (34 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 24 2018, @02:00AM (#670980) Journal

    You've got it all wrong. It isn't the creators pie being guarded. It's the corporate pie. Those silly bastards in suits can't write songs, or stories. They can't act. They can't do jack. Instead, they write contracts for gullible artists to sign. They toss the artist a few crumbs, while they devour the cake, and the loaf of bread, and the pie too.

    If it were just the artists, then you might have a point to make.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Informative=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @02:05AM (33 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @02:05AM (#670983)

    It is not a consumer's responsibility to manage the accounting practices of the publishers, et al. If the artists are not getting their fair share then that is their battle to wage. Pirating the content - especially when pretending to do it because you don't like corporations - does not put a penny in the pockets of the content creators.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 24 2018, @02:25AM (16 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 24 2018, @02:25AM (#670995) Journal

      It is the consumer's responsibility to spend his money wisely. There's no point in making the suits richer. Going down to your local bar, and tipping the live band does more for culture than paying the suits for their exploitative contracts.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @02:54AM (12 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @02:54AM (#671007)

        Most on the bands I listen to do not play at my local bar. Many of them are no longer together, nor where they when I bought the CD. Some of them were even dead at the time or are dead now.

        Your plan really limits what I can listen to (unless I download it without paying like you do).

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 24 2018, @02:58AM (11 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 24 2018, @02:58AM (#671010) Journal

          So, do you imagine that the money you spend on vinyl, or cd or whatever is benefitting those dead artists? How does that work?

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @03:16AM (10 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @03:16AM (#671020)

            The estates of deceased artists, performers, writers, authors, etc continue to get their residuals. For someone who claims to be more intelligent than everyone else you sure ask some dumb questions.

            Here's the difference between you and me when it comes to this topic: I don't care that you download content without paying (see how I didn't use your trigger word "pirate"?) but you not only care that I do pay for content, you are trying to convince me that I am not only wrong to do so but that I am unintelligent for doing it.

            • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @03:26AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @03:26AM (#671024)

              The estates of deceased artists, performers, writers, authors, etc continue to get their residuals.

              Yeah, well, that's the rip off. Those people did nothing to earn that. Bunch of damn rent collectors is all they are. Fuck them! I support the creator/performer, not some stupid license holder.

            • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday April 24 2018, @05:47AM (6 children)

              by bzipitidoo (4388) on Tuesday April 24 2018, @05:47AM (#671041) Journal

              I think everyone will agree that artists deserve compensation.

              But copyright is fundamentally broken, and unfair to all of us. Technology has advanced to make the distribution of music far, far cheaper than ever before. The music industry has grudgingly, after great pressure, conceded that 99 cents is a fair price for a song. Of course, they would rather charge $20 for an album with one good song and half an hour of filler.

              However, price is not the main issue, it is the model. the model of paying for each copy. There are several other perfectly viable business models, but the industry likes to pretend that they're no good, and only holy copyright can possibly compensate artists fairly. To uphold that business model, we are all not to use more than a fraction of our technology's capabilities, reaping its immensely increased access to science and art, and huge savings. That is what is so unfair. Our public libraries ought to be allowed to store and disseminate digital copies of everything. It would make them far more useful and be much more convenient for us. So much, much better to download a copy from the comfort of home, rather than spend time and energy traveling to a library branch, and then travel there again to return the item. Or be subjected to the outrageous late fees libraries tend to like to impose-- fines that can quickly exceed the value of a physical copy. Library books would be searchable. I am not at all happy that Google gets special dispensation to index copyrighted books while libraries are denied.

              Could we have found the Cure for Cancer by now, if science was freely available online and not so frequently copyrighted and patented to the nth degree, and locked behind paywalls?

              • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday April 24 2018, @02:21PM (5 children)

                by Pino P (4721) on Tuesday April 24 2018, @02:21PM (#671161) Journal

                There are several other perfectly viable business models, but the industry likes to pretend that they're no good

                The poor reviews of many of crowdfunding's "success stories" (the OUYA console and the game Mighty No. 9) have given crowdfunding a bad reputation. How would you suggest to fix crowdfunding? Or what model other than copyright or crowdfunding did you have in mind?

                • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday April 24 2018, @05:00PM (3 children)

                  by bzipitidoo (4388) on Tuesday April 24 2018, @05:00PM (#671224) Journal

                  Yes, crowdfunding is the biggest. Fix it? It's not that crowdfunding needs fixing so much as better support. We need better laws and other official support. Too many important services are in the hands of private corporations whose top priority is money, not service. They have never stopped trying to monopolizing markets so they can gouge customers. Services such as Facebook are notorious for throwing our privacy out the window for more money. YouTube is another big site that seems to have wrestled special privileges from rights holders and the people, privileges which should not be exclusive to YouTube or Google. Seems the Post Office or a new agency should be in the business of providing Internet service and privacy, so fundamental has that become to our society, while the private providers can continue business much like FedEx and UPS. At the other end, a business such as Humble Bundle is a great crowdfunder, but I worry that they could go defunct and I would lose access to all the games I'd bought but haven't yet gotten around to downloading and playing. We've seen that sort of problem all too often with music services in which the customers lose access to the music they bought whenever the servers go down for any reason, and the DRM can't verify their right to listen to their locked files, and just defaults to forbidding access because the music industry just knows everyone steals.

                  Another piece of the puzzle is the digital notary. Certainly we don't want to enable plagiarism, and digital notaries, private or public, whose certs the courts accept as proof of authorship, seem like a really good idea. That's the sort of support I'm talking about, a legal framework for a service like that to function well.

                  The copyright hoarders need to be pushed harder. They enjoy entirely too much legal support. That Copyright Alert System which is now defunct is the sort of thing I mean. It allowed them to violate due process and seriously inconvenience people just on the accusation of piracy, never mind proof. The ISP was required to shut off Internet access to anyone they accused. Happened to me 3 times. Then there's the DMCA takedown. They were given the power to have any video or song removed in an instant, just by alleging that it violated one of their copyrights, and we've all seen how that's been abused to take down videos that didn't violate copyright. In some cases in which the item may or may not violate copyright, we've learned the requests came from accusers who didn't actually own the rights in question and therefore had no standing to make a takedown demand.

                  • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday April 24 2018, @09:55PM

                    by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Tuesday April 24 2018, @09:55PM (#671365)

                    They have never stopped trying to monopolizing markets so they can gouge customers.

                    This is it in a nutshell. The cartel that runs the entertainment controls, or fights to control, every aspect of distribution, especially the revenue. When artists sign with the cartel, they give up everything but what they can gain from live performances. They lose control of the rights to their recordings, and where and when they can be heard. Refuse to sign and you are blocked from commercial radio, television, no large arena will allow you to perform there and so on. The vast majority of artists get a signing bonus for that and nothing more. For the rest of their careers they are in debt to the label.

                  • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Sunday May 06 2018, @11:04PM (1 child)

                    by Pino P (4721) on Sunday May 06 2018, @11:04PM (#676468) Journal

                    Another piece of the puzzle is the digital notary. Certainly we don't want to enable plagiarism, and digital notaries, private or public, whose certs the courts accept as proof of authorship, seem like a really good idea.

                    A digital notary like Copyright.gov, operated by the US Library of Congress? For under 50 USD, an author can register his claim to authorship of a particular work. U.S. courts accept registration with Copyright.gov as prima facie evidence of authorship, and it also entitles the author to statutory damages for any infringement occurring afterward.

                    we've learned the requests came from accusers who didn't actually own the rights in question and therefore had no standing to make a takedown demand.

                    Then the accuser perjured himself.

                    • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday May 07 2018, @01:56AM

                      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Monday May 07 2018, @01:56AM (#676531) Journal

                      Copyright.gov isn't enough. For one thing, it costs far too much. The high price helps cut frivolous copyrighting, but I had in mind a near free service. A totally automatic and free digital notary service would be great, but might have to charge a little something to keep it from being spammed into oblivion. To keep it simple, the service wouldn't bother checking for plagiarism. The idea with that is to let the timestamp sort out plagiarism issues. The plagiarized copy should have the more recent timestamp.

                • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday April 24 2018, @05:08PM

                  by Freeman (732) on Tuesday April 24 2018, @05:08PM (#671228) Journal

                  I've always been skeptical when it came to crowdfunding. Please fund me, so I can do this thing I can't afford to do and haven't ever done before. Just doesn't inspire confidence in someone or their product. There's also a Ton of junk to sift through to find anything interesting, because it's easy to have an idea. Crowdfunding is investment in an idea, not the purchase of a finished project. Don't invest, if you "can't lose" your investment.

                  --
                  Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @08:32AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @08:32AM (#671077)

              For someone who claims to be more intelligent than everyone else you sure ask some dumb questions.

              Ah, the famous "Ad novi imperatoris vestimenta suam" argument ... bravo!

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Gaaark on Tuesday April 24 2018, @11:11AM

              by Gaaark (41) on Tuesday April 24 2018, @11:11AM (#671111) Journal

              Courtney Love deserves Nirvana residules, why?

              Oh: because she married him, she should own the rights to Nirvana's songs over, you know, Nirvana's band members.

              --
              --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
      • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday April 24 2018, @02:15PM (2 children)

        by Pino P (4721) on Tuesday April 24 2018, @02:15PM (#671160) Journal

        Going down to your local bar

        Waiting outside the bar's door until your twenty-first birthday is no fun. It's the result of alcoholic beverage regulation in many states in SN's home country.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 24 2018, @02:46PM (1 child)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 24 2018, @02:46PM (#671178) Journal

          Heh. One of my uncles ran the dinky little bar in the village back home. I never bothered him while I was in school. Never asked for a drink, never suggested that I might want a drink. After I joined the Navy, I swung by the bar one evening, and asked for a beer. Uncle was happy to serve a beer to his sailor brother's sailor son. Never asked about my age. For a couple of years, I went in and ordered a beer every time I was home.

          For my 21st birthday, I took leave, and made sure to go down to the bar for a drink. Sat at the bar, pulled out my ID, and showed it to Uncle. "Uncle Don, how about my first legal beer, please?" Uncle was dumbfounded. "You've been coming in here for a couple years now, and you weren't old enough?" I just pushed my ID a little closer to him.

          That was some funny shit! Mom and Dad didn't think it was so funny. :(

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday April 24 2018, @06:50PM

            by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 24 2018, @06:50PM (#671268)

            That's one thing that irritates me. You were old enough to die for your country if your ship sank (assuming you served on a ship), but not old enough to have a beer.

            I for one would most certainly let my 18 year old have a beer if it weren't illegal (IIRC in MN if I give him one in my own home it is an affirmative defense, still means he'd have to go to court).

            --
            The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday April 24 2018, @02:29AM (15 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday April 24 2018, @02:29AM (#670997)

      As someone who's done some "content creating" in my time, and knows other folks who are more in the industry than me: GP is right, the benefits usually go to executives at the handful of companies that control almost all media in the US [businessinsider.com]. The main method they use for this is by making the "content creators" as you term them constantly in debt to the company, and making lots of costs "recoupable" from the royalties, so any money that is made goes to paying off the debt, not paying the people who made the thing.

      Don't believe me, read what Courtney Love had to say about record contracts [gerryhemingway.com]. Not much has changed since she wrote that.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @02:51AM (11 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @02:51AM (#671004)

        I don't disagree that many artists get screwed by bad deals. But they agreed to the terms of the contact and should have had their lawyers review the deal and warn them of the dangers and pitfalls. At some point people are responsible for their own actions, including entering into contracts.

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 24 2018, @03:01AM (2 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 24 2018, @03:01AM (#671011) Journal

          Right. And, at what point does society, as a whole, reject those bogus contracts?

          "You, the artist, are obligated to produce art, for as long as we can profit from your art. In exchange, we'll make you famous, and we'll treat you like a pampered pet, for as long as the company can profit from doing so. You, the artist, must sign over all rights and benefits, to us, the company. The company has no obligations to you, the artist. We may throw you away at any time, with or without cause."

          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @03:24AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @03:24AM (#671023)

            Society should reject contacts that individuals enter into willingly? What kind of communism are you preaching?

            Look, at some point people are responsible form their own actions whether it is signing a contract thinking they are going to become a big star or pirating content because they feel that paying for it would put money into more pockets than just the artist.

            • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @03:30AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @03:30AM (#671025)

              What kind of communism are you preaching?

              It's the same kind of "communism" that says you can't sign yourself into slavery, or do other similar things. It's the kind of "communism" that attempts to protect ordinary people from vicious sociopaths and psychopaths who care about money above all else. Of course, we all know that anything that isn't 100% unrestrained dog-eat-dog capitalism is communism.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 24 2018, @03:06AM (3 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 24 2018, @03:06AM (#671015) Journal

          BTW - thanks for exposing yourself. I believe that you are the same ac who expressed concern for starving artists above. Your most recent post clearly states that you don't give two shits about those artists. You're a shill, and not a very good one. Thank you for confirming that.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @03:20AM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @03:20AM (#671021)

            I am not the AC who mentioned or offered support for starving artists. I'm the one who said artists are responsible for any contract they sign.

            Just a reminder - just because someone disagrees with you does not make them a shill.

            • (Score: 2, Touché) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday April 24 2018, @02:31PM

              by nitehawk214 (1304) on Tuesday April 24 2018, @02:31PM (#671168)

              So says the person shilling for the music industry.

              --
              "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 25 2018, @08:23PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 25 2018, @08:23PM (#671839)

              Look fucko the music industry is full of predators. You people are the natural enemies of everyone in tech, the RIAA and MPAA are dwarfed both financially and in terms of social impact by the tech industry. Yet you assholes are constantly a fucking thorn in our side.

              I used to pay for all content.. really.
              Now I pirate out of spite for my enemy.
              If the tech industry was even fractionally as power hungry as you and your club for psychopaths we would have dominated the world back in the 90s. I want your industry to die I don't need you to make music and for that matter we don't even need hollywood to finance movies. I hope your industry dies and then lawyers descend on the corpse to pick it dry and then every girl group who ever gave a blowjob for a record deal comes out of the woodwork to #metoo every single one of you cocksuckers in front of your kids.

        • (Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday April 24 2018, @05:12AM

          by Arik (4543) on Tuesday April 24 2018, @05:12AM (#671036) Journal
          Oh, people should be much more careful about what they sign, no doubt about it.

          Doesn't counter the point that the media companies are evil and you're stupid for obeying their dictates and internalising their corrupted definitions as your own.
          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @08:04AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @08:04AM (#671066)

          They are the ones responsible for signing those contracts, but the rest of us shouldn't be. We shouldn't be the ones paying for the artists' mistakes. We should be allowed to do the capitalist thing and vote with our wallets to support the artists, not the executives. The whole corporate communism idea of paying lazy executives for doing nothing of value should not be enforced by law, at least not outside communist countries such as North Korea.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @08:35AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @08:35AM (#671078)

          Weasel alert! Change of subject detected! Let's get back to "poor artists" angle.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @10:37PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @10:37PM (#671385)

          I didn't sign those contracts. I have no relationship at all with those companies.
          Why should they have any say at all in how I arrange the bits on my hard drive?

      • (Score: 1) by loonycyborg on Tuesday April 24 2018, @07:13AM (2 children)

        by loonycyborg (6905) on Tuesday April 24 2018, @07:13AM (#671059)

        Such a situation is created and enforced by copyright law. That's its original purpose: to criminalize competing with leading publishers who basically act as oligopoly. If you had a slightest chance to go to other publisher who doesn't rip you off so much they wouldn't behave so. But such a publisher will never exist until copyright law is abolished.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 24 2018, @02:30PM (1 child)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 24 2018, @02:30PM (#671166) Journal

          Mmmmmm . . . you're kinda on the right track, but, you've missed the target a little. Copyright seems to have occurred before the major publishers happened. Copyright wasn't created at the behest of publishers, it was actually meant to protect artists. And, in it's original form, it said little more than, "If there's a dollar to be made from this work, then the author gets part of that dollar."

          Unfortunately, copyright law has been hijacked, maimed, and mutilated by the likes of Walt Disney and his company. Today, it appears that copyright law exists for the benefit of publishers, and damn the artists.

          • (Score: 1) by loonycyborg on Wednesday April 25 2018, @08:56AM

            by loonycyborg (6905) on Wednesday April 25 2018, @08:56AM (#671555)

            This is incorrect. Copyright originally started as government backed monopoly for particular british publishers established after invention of printing press. Since their efforts to make this monopoly permanent feature stalled due to public being uncooperative they rebranded it as "protection for authors" but it never changed its nature. It cannot actually protect author's right because whole system isn't designed for it. It exists only to shield particular publishers from competition via government intervention.