Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Saturday August 25 2018, @10:12PM   Printer-friendly
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/


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This discussion has been archived.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: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 26 2018, @05:38AM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 26 2018, @05:38AM (#726454)

    Thus, I assume your pro-piracy "Constitutional" stance disapproves of pirating anything produced since 2003, correct?

    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.?

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=3, Total=4
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 26 2018, @04:48PM (2 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 26 2018, @04:48PM (#726593) Journal

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27 2018, @04:03PM (#726960)

      So long as they remain unjust, I can have no respect for the law, nor for the people who made the laws.

      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

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 27 2018, @04:42PM (#726984) Journal

        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)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Sunday August 26 2018, @10:30PM (#726716) Journal

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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)

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Sunday August 26 2018, @10:38PM (#726720) Journal

      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

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday August 30 2018, @05:51AM (#728178) Homepage
        A decade or so ago, at least in Europe, the biggest consumers of illegally copied IP were actually the largest purchasers of IP too. Piracy actually *helped* content creators.
        --
        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

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday August 30 2018, @05:39AM (#728177) Homepage
      The "lost sales" argument is easy to evaluate - if the "crime" involved a "sale" that wasn't for the IP owner, then it was a "lost sale", to the value of that sale. anything distributed for free is not a "lost sale", and makes the companies who act as "distributers", and by so doing take a huge cut, look utterly redundant. Oh, and the 180 million that was spent on marketting it wasn't necessary either, as word of mouth sufficed. So basically the 400 million budget to make the film could have been pared down to the 100 million actually required (and I use that term loosely) to make the film. If you'd have let me see it for a quarter of the price that you actually did try to gouge me for, then perhaps I would have been happy providing you with a sale. You, the megamediacorp, lost the sale through your own action - fine yourself! (And yes, I understand tentpoles, I don't need a lecture.)
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves