SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the you-wouldn't-download-a-speech dept.
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
The entertainment industries are growing increasingly frustrated with major Internet platforms that, in their view, are not doing enough to tackle online piracy.
This was also the topic of a speech given by MPAA chief Charles Rivkin, during the TPI Aspen Forum yesterday.
[...] "I want to address one of the most vibrant and interconnected ecosystems in human history. That, of course, is the internet. And as we meet, the healthy and vibrant internet that we all want is in serious jeopardy," Rivkin says.
[...] While the complaints about Internet piracy are not new, the MPAA ties piracy in with more recent debates about fake news, election meddling, and hate speech. From Cambridge Analytica to Infowars.
Rivkin calls for a national conversation on how to return the Internet to a place of vibrant but civil discourse. A place where fake news, hate speech, and piracy are properly dealt with.
Eventually, this leads the MPAA's boss to Silicon Valley. Rivkin sees a major role for Internet platforms to do more to stop piracy and other types of abuse. If that doesn't happen voluntarily, the US Government could step in, he suggests
[...] The widespread problem of online piracy is a sign of worse to come, the MPAA chief suggests.
"Online piracy is also the proverbial canary in a coal mine. The same pervasive theft that my industry faces is part of a continuum of toxic developments that harm all of us in this ecosystem – consumers, creators, and commercial operators alike," he says.
In his speech, Rivkin refers to the "broken windows" theory to illustrate his point. This theory suggests that an atmosphere of lawlessness is created when small crimes are left unpunished. Seeing broken windows in the streets makes it more likely that others will start vandalizing as well.
Source: https://torrentfreak.com/piracy-is-the-internets-canary-in-the-coal-mine-mpaa-chief-says-180821/
(Score: 5, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday August 26 2018, @12:57AM (13 children)
I completely agree with all this. However, I'd also note we have a pretty clear version of what those who wrote and approved of the Constitution originally meant in the Copyright Act of 1790 when they said "limited time."
The Act of 1790 specified a 14-year term with a 14-year renewal (assuming the author was still alive to apply for renewal).
Thus, I assume your pro-piracy "Constitutional" stance disapproves of pirating anything produced since 2003, correct? And pretty much most things produced since 1989??
Because that's the argument you're making here. And I'm willing to bet that 99.9% of internet piracy involves sharing and downloading materials produced after 1989. So if your point rests on the idea that laws against the VAST MAJORITY of internet piracy are "unconstitutional," I'm not sure it holds water.
(And again, I completely agree that the copyright extensions are ridiculous and should never have been granted. But if you want to argue Constitutional law, be clear about what that implies.)
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 26 2018, @05:38AM (7 children)
First off, s/piracy/copyright infringement/ and s/pirating/committing copyright infringement of/. Piracy is what happens at sea around the horn of Africa. The only way you can use a computer to commit piracy is if you beat the captain (former captain?) of a commandeered ship with it.
No, I currently do not disapprove of any form of copyright infringement. I currently do not recognize any form of imaginary property law whatsoever as being a valid law. Patents have been abused to the point of absurdity, trademark infringement cases have gotten completely out of hand, and copyright extensions are unconstitutional and downright obscene. For what it's worth, my stance on this would change completely if all copyright extensions were revoked such that all content produced before 1989 entered public domain.
The way the laws are currently written the public domain is starved of content. That content was supposed to be what was given up in exchange for the limited monopoly. Due to the repeated extensions to copyright law, the copyright cartels owe We The People quite a bit of public domain content. Because they choose not to provide that voluntarily, We The People have chosen for them, and We The People have chosen to take as payment what would otherwise be protected had it not been for the obscene amount of extensions applied to the length of copyright.
The reason for my harsh stance is the same reason you don't fine a thief only the amount they were caught trying to steal. If I committed copyright infringement only of things that should be public domain there would be no penalty against the people who removed those things from public domain. To use their words, they stole several decades worth of content from public domain and continue to steal content from public domain unabated. Therefore, as restitution for those crimes, they will forfeit to me any content I desire as their fine for said theft.
Yes, that is a very "judge, jury, and executioner" outlook on things, but how is it any different than writing the law you want on the back of a check made out to a scumbag elected official in D.C.?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 26 2018, @04:48PM (2 children)
My views resemble yours. Currently copyright and patent laws are unjust. If they were to be made just again, I could respect them. So long as they remain unjust, I can have no respect for the law, nor for the people who made the laws. It isn't even possible to respect those people who should be correcting the unjust laws, and fail to do so. Congress and the courts are responsible for making and interpreting just laws, and they have failed to do so for decades now. Of course, copyright law isn't their only complete and utter failure - I've said much the same in regard to immigration law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27 2018, @04:03PM (1 child)
So the broken window theory is right: shitty laws like copyright cause disrespect for all other laws and the people who made them.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 27 2018, @04:42PM
I don't know about " all other laws". A lot of traffic laws are contemptible, because they are designed to generate revenues, instead of making the highways safe. But, traffic laws in general are a "good thing", and we couldn't travel without them.
Unfortunately, copyright laws have gone so far overboard, there is nothing left to respect. You, me, our kids, our friends - none of us get any good from the law. It's all lopsided, favoring the select few, and robbing from all the rest of us.
Patent law is somewhat different. I think that basically, the laws, as written, retain some good. But, the law as practiced isn't the law as written. In point of fact, we have gamers gaming the system. Pharmaceuticals, especially. Medication "X" was approved for headaches years ago. The patent is about to run out. Suddenly Medication "X" is approved for a new application - foor pain. New patent issued. FFS, that's stupid! It's the same old medication that it always was, and it relieves pain. Nothing new - no patent is permissible. Except, pharmaceuticals have tons of money, so they can buy their patents, either directly or indirectly. Here, we just need to close some obvious loopholes, and patent law can (mostly) become respectable again.
Oh yeah - put an end to software patents. Every bit of software should be covered by copyright, and nothing else. 14 years of protection, then it's public domain. There is zero point in renewing a copyright for 14 year old software - it's obsolete!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday August 26 2018, @10:30PM (3 children)
First off, the meanings of words change. Deal with it. "Piracy" is now understood by the vast majority of people who know anything about copyright to refer to copyright infringement.
And also, uh... this usage is not new [etymonline.com]. In fact, the meaning of taking another's work without permission dates back to the early 1700s.
Well, that's all well and good, but in the meantime, your "protest" (or whatever you want to call it) isn't really hurting those who made the bad laws at all. It's disrespecting content creators since 1989 -- not just the executives either, but the actual artists.
Now, I know the typical pro-pirate (yep, I'm using that word -- deal with it) reply: "Most piracy is not lost sales." Absolutely true. But it does represent SOME lost sales. I don't think any reasonable person (and anyone who has ever pirated a few things) can dispute that there are SOME things they might have paid for if they were required to. And yes, illegal copying can help to "spread the word" in some cases, which can create more popular interest and lead to profits for artists.
BUT -- according to copyright law -- the choice to do that (e.g., to share some content for free) is within the artist's choice, not yours to make for them.
Look, I'm not going to defend lawmakers who changed these laws. I've already explicitly condemned them. And I'm not going to defend studio execs who profit off of other's labor while lobbying elected officials to create those laws.
BUT again, there are lots of people who get paid royalties, and the vast majority of them get only a small amount. Your stance is that the don't get anything because they're stuck in a corrupt system. And I'm not just talking about people whom you might say, "Huh, you should just go independent -- and choose your own terms! Distribute your own way!" It's not just writers and producers... it's gaffers and sound engineers and editing assistants, etc., many of whom need to make a living. Many of them may not get royalties if they're far enough down the food chain, but they get paid based on royalties that were made on the previous movie or album or whatever.
I want you to look those people in the eye and explain why you don't think they deserve to be paid, even though you apparently like the content they make enough to take it without their permission.
There are ways to lodge a more reasonable protest. I consume very little "mainstream" media from Hollywood or major recording labels or whatever. I wouldn't say I boycott them completely, but the last time I was in a movie theater to see anything made by a major studio was several years ago.
Instead, what you're doing is saying, "The system is corrupt; therefore it justifies my lawlessness." And that's your choice. I'm not judging you if you want to just say, "I don't care about creators or whatever -- I just want MY STUFF, so I will TAKE what I WANT and screw them!" It's not an ethical choice, but it's at least consistent.
But you seemingly want to pretend you have an ethical and moral rationale that supports your piracy. You don't. You're mad at Congress for passing unjust laws, so you take it out on a different party. That's not justice -- nor is it good logic.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday August 26 2018, @10:38PM (1 child)
Also, if you want to see what moral protests look like, as well as ethical uses of civil disobedience, you might have a look at stuff like Thoreau and Martin Luther King and Ghandi discussing civil disobedience. You protest an unjust law by targeting that law in particular.
Yet I suspect that despite your claims to the contrary, even if everything created in 1989 and before went into public domain tomorrow, you'd still want to pirate a bunch of stuff. Right? Be honest. Isn't that true?
(Lastly, I should note that I think we need more significant copyright reform too. I don't know the 1790 act could be workable anymore either. But arguing for copyright reform is different from arguing for lawlessness and punishing creators who didn't make the laws.)
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 30 2018, @05:51AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 30 2018, @05:39AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 26 2018, @12:15PM
"Because that's the argument you're making here. And I'm willing to bet that 99.9% of internet piracy involves sharing and downloading materials produced after 1989. So if your point rests on the idea that laws against the VAST MAJORITY of internet piracy are "unconstitutional," I'm not sure it holds water."
Back when they started radically expanding the length of copyright it was pointed out then and there that by making the terms insanely long would make it so that people would stop taking copyright seriously. That they'd start pirating on a much larger scale regardless of how long something had been released. Guess what? That's exactly what happened. Why? Because there's no reason to wait for something to expire from copyright if there's a 100% chance you'll be dead of old age before that even has a chance of happening.
If the terms had never been extended to the point where copyrights literally last longer than their creators - 50-75 years longer than their creator at that depending on the country of origin - I'd point out that people would still respect copyright.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 26 2018, @03:10PM (3 children)
There was quite a lot of content created before 28 years ago. A lot of it was damn good too.
Now, imagine you're an aspiring author of children's books and all the Dr. Seuss books are public domain. Good luck trying to make a living competing with that mountain of free and genius content. (Dr. Seuss books are indeed still easily accessible, and even though they are not free, children's books are probably the hardest genre to make money in these days because of them and a scant handful of other children's classics.)
Restricting access to older works is not just about profiteering off them. It's also about protecting and managing the marketplace so new works can appear. Sure, new works will appear anyway. But do the math. How many? How original or derivative? How serious can an author be knowing there's no way to make a living off his work. We're already having enough trouble with so much crap out there. If you want smart, talented people doing a job, they need to be able to make a better living than teaching at the local community college, or playing politics at a corporate office gig while they make a half-assed show of doing real work. I personally know a damn good writer, prolific and funny as shit stuff. He quit writing to run a restaurant. Why? Because it's easier and he makes better money. If you know anything about running a restaurant, that should tell you a lot about the effort involved in writing.
Yes, writing is damn hard work. It's not a magical talent people are born with, it's a skill you have to develop. It takes a huge investment of time and effort. Go ahead, try to write a novel that doesn't suck by the fifth page. If you make it that far, get some feedback from friends and neighbors. See how much they love it, or more likely, hate it. Go ahead, do it. If you can't even get that far, then shut the fuck up about copyright law you stupid poser. Yeah, it's not a perfect system. Name one that is.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 26 2018, @04:58PM
https://www.amazon.com/s?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=children%27s+books [amazon.com]
There is no shortage of children's books. Reading your post, one might suspect that you attempted to write children's books, and that you failed. I won't even accuse you of writing crappy books that didn't appeal - there are plenty of other reasons why an author might fail. You didn't build the proper networking while in college? Politics? Your work is not politically correct? Maybe the illustrations just weren't good enough? I can't say why you might have failed, but you failed to compete in today's real market.
But, that isn't because of Doctor Seuss, or copyright law. Browse the link above. There are more children's books than you can shake a stick at. That first page has publication dates ranging from the '80's right up through 2015. Books are being published, and Seuss isn't stopping them.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 26 2018, @05:03PM
You're either a troll or a jackass moron. I can't quite tell from your post, so I'll assume jackass moron simply because there are more of those on the internet.
I think that's the biggest load of horse shit I've ever seen. Hold on, I've gotta grab the 9/11 Commission Report and take some measurements...
Do you know how I know you're not a good author? I take it in your world nobody is writing new orchestral music, seeing as how there's so much good classical music out there already. Why should they when there are so many songs by Bach and Beethoven (and others) available in public domain?
Not posting the author's name? You're full of shit. Either the author isn't as prolific as you claim, or they're a figment of your imagination. Post their name (published name is fine if it's a pseudonym) or STFU.
Or, much more likely, because he's a shit writer and couldn't give away his books. But we don't know because we don't even know who you're talking about. Again, post his name or STFU.
Some people are good at certain tasks, some are not. Anyone can write computer code. Very few can write efficient and secure computer code. Anyone can use a pencil to make marks on paper. Very few can actually make those marks resemble something meaningful. The same holds true for writing. Some people are good writers and some just can't make a story flow to save their life. If you weren't such a jackass moron you'd realize that.
Let's move on to something other than your word salad. I present to you the story of Kimba the white lion. A piece of public domain work that was copied and slightly modified by one international crime syndicate (guilty of crimes against humanity, which is what current copyright laws are) commonly called Disney. If someone tried to copy the Kimba story again and add a small amount of original content (just like Disney did) Disney would lawyer them to death for copying their story "The Lion King." Even though they didn't copy Disney's story, they copied the public domain story that Disney copied. In the end it doesn't matter, nobody else can take the same easy route Disney did, and nobody will ever be able to in the future because Disney has a copyright that is, for all intents and purposes, perpetual. If copyright terms were sane that easy route would be clearly available again a few years from now.
Take a look at Disney's back catalog. A large amount of their work is copied from public domain. Once that public domain work is copied it's possible for Disney to claim that any new copies of the public domain work are copies of their copies, thereby actually removing that work from the public domain. That's another thing I'd change: make public domain infective the same way GPL is infective. If you copy public domain work, your new work automatically becomes public domain. Create new or GTFO.
I'll leave you with this: Why should I pay part of my tax money to protect your precious authors when I will see ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in return for my taxes? Public domain was what I was supposed to see in return. As the laws were originally written, after the copyright expired, I got free access to that which I paid to protect previously. As it stands right now we're socializing the costs to protect the privatized profits of your oh so precious authors. Sounds like welfare handouts to me. That's worse than socialism: it's fascism. We're living in a corporatist kleptocracy and it seems like you don't have a problem with that.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday August 26 2018, @10:08PM
Obviously. I never said otherwise. And I agree it's a travesty it's not available in the public domain.
The point I was making was quite simple: >99% of transactions of copyrighted material online are very likely involving material created in the past 28 years. Torrent swarms happen around newly released movies, albums, etc., not frequently around stuff from the 1980s or before. So, if one is going to make an argument about Constitutional copyright as it applies to online sharing, it's important to keep in mind that the vast majority of infringements would still be within the period the Founders identified as reasonable for copyright.