SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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/
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @02:54AM (12 children)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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.
Then the accuser perjured himself.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday May 07 2018, @01:56AM
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
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
Ah, the famous "Ad novi imperatoris vestimenta suam" argument ... bravo!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Gaaark on Tuesday April 24 2018, @11:11AM
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 ---