SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Australian Communications Minister is proposing "game changing" laws crack down on Piracy by forcing search engines such as Google to filter content results thereby removing the path people have to finding illegal content online.
[...] Under the proposed laws to be introduced to Parliament today, authorities will also be able to force search engines like Google to stop "unashamedly facilitating crime" by promoting pirate sites that allow internet users to illegally download music or films.
Graham Burke, chief executive of Australian film company Village Roadshow, last night hailed the new laws as game-changing for the industry while slamming Google for acting "as evil as Big Tobacco" in its online behaviour.
"We stand ready to be co-operative with Google. We see good Google and bad Google. But bad Google is as evil as Big Tobacco was 30 years ago. They know what they're doing. They know they're facilitating and enabling crime and it's time for them to clean their act up," he told News Corp.
He accused Google of "unashamedly facilitating crime" by taking people to criminal pirate websites.
Does the Australian government really need to give weapons to special interest groups to enforce civil laws the majority of people do not support?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19 2018, @01:38PM (44 children)
I certainly can and do sell my product (I make a pretty good living, TYVM). But there are those who simply don't want to pay for something because they feel entitled to get it for free. The "I'm only copying it and not preventing someone else from buying it, so it's OK for me to take it without paying" mindset.
Should someone who values my "product" enough to want it and use it, but does not value my time enough to pay for my "product", get it for free?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Friday October 19 2018, @01:53PM (28 children)
That depends on exactly what your "product" is.
Obviously in regards to physical manufactured products this isn't a problem - even though, in a sense, it does happen. I mean, eventually virtually every sort of product winds up in the dump, and people do go dumpster diving and grab all kinds of cool stuff for free. But the creator doesn't (or at least shouldn't) care - the revenue was extracted at first sale and nothing more is expected or due.
In the case of more abstract products, however, this is often exactly what happens - and what has to happen. For instance in music, for many decades the accepted mark of success is the recording artist. When a musician has not reached that point yet, you would actually have to go somewhere and typically pay an entrance fee just to hear them. And you would record them - in your own head, if nowhere else, but many people brought recorders, and many bands would obligingly arrange plugs so they could record the PA feed. These recordings were not seen as theft, or as undesirable or problematic, they were promotion, they were how you would remember the band, remember to come see them the next time they were in your area.
Then you cross that boundary and you're a 'recording artist' and now people only have to turn on the radio to hear your song, and to copy it. And now you're making royalties per sale - giving you an incentive to change your attitude, to start trying to STOP people from copying your song, wanting to force them to buy the pressed copy instead at a premium price. And a few people instantly change attitude - Metallica I'm looking at you - but in my experience most 'creators' did not. Royalties don't usually amount to much for an artist - the artists still needs to tour and play live to make their money. The record company makes most of the money on those pressed copies - and THEY are the ones that REALLY want to stop copying.
But should they be able to? Yes, we know they'd *like* a monopoly grant here, but is there a public interest in giving them one?
Just because you've built your business on an unsustainable model doesn't give you the right to up-end law and strip everyone else of their rights rather than changing your model.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday October 19 2018, @02:41PM (10 children)
Allowing people to record concerts is probably good marketing and helps get others who hear the recordings to buy an entrance fee to a live concert. In contrast, there are no bars hopping with people paying entrance fees to watch a piece of software, particularly business software, operate. So copying software doesn't achieve the same outcome as copying music.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19 2018, @03:11PM
This has worked for many bands (I think the Grateful Dead are the epitome of this mindset).
This.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday October 19 2018, @03:51PM (5 children)
Historically, at least, it has worked very much the same. Microsoft dominance owes a great deal to how easy it was to 'pirate' their software. A whole generation entered the workforce knowing their software without training - because it was free and easy to get things like 'Office' at home and learn them there.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday October 19 2018, @04:41PM (4 children)
Does causation run in that direction? Is it possible people pirated Office because they were familiar with it from work? If "free" was the only consideration, OpenOffice should dominate everything -- not only is it free, it is permissibly free.
(Score: 4, Touché) by mhajicek on Friday October 19 2018, @04:53PM (1 child)
Where was Open Office in the 1980's when I was learning how to computer?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19 2018, @05:35PM
It was at the afore mentioned Greatful Dead concert. The one with the 28 minute version of Amazing Grace.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday October 19 2018, @06:58PM (1 child)
The most common route to get a pirate copy was for it to be something you, or someone in your family, or extended family/circle of friends, worked with. So the fact that (for example) MS-DOS was widely used in business contributed to it being widely 'pirated' and then that in turn led to it being *even more* widely used in business as a generation of kids that grew up using pirated copies entered the workforce.
In terms of Office, specifically, it was WordPerfect that was most used, and most pirated; before that it was WordStar I think, but when MS started pushing their version one thing I remember very clearly was that they made it much easier to pirate than WP.
And that was actually a feat considering that WP had no copy protection whatsoever; indeed, like any decent program it encouraged you to keep backups of everything, including it! But what you really paid for when you bought WP was the manual. Ran about 600 pages iirc, oh and also the cardboard punchouts that you fit over the keyboard for a cheat-sheet. The program was for all practical purposes free as in beer - you paid for the documentation needed to really figure it all out.
Word wasn't nearly as functional, or elegant, or desirable in most ways. But it was fairly easy to get going without a manual and some cardboard cutouts. I'm hardly the first to suggest that the ease with which it was 'pirated' contributed to its rapid rise of popularity. IIRC internal Microsoft documents stating as much were leaked at some point in the mid-90s. They made a conscious decision to ignore the 'problem' for decades, in the expectation they would then be allowed to yank the leash and assert unprecedented control in the future, just as they are now doing.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Informative) by VLM on Friday October 19 2018, @09:06PM
That is a quaint lost technology that anyone younger than gen-x will have no idea WTF it is.
To help the kiddies, now-a-days if you have modded minecraft usually F7 will display the light level overlay. But how to memorize that? In ye olden days games came with cardboard sheets that sat on your keyboard with holes for the keys, and the cardboard had a nice label for "light level overlay" roughly lining up with your F7 key, so you'd know at a glance to hit F7 while learning muscle memory. Some overlays had multiple colors, some games had multiple overlays for different modes OR different keyboards. It was a cool era and a cool technology.
I remember the one for Microprose Stealth Fighter simulator was particularly nice circa 1990.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday October 19 2018, @03:56PM (2 children)
Did you forget esports and Let's Plays? Or did you mean "particularly business software" to exclude esports and Let's Plays?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday October 19 2018, @04:38PM (1 child)
business software
There just might may be a small difference between watching people compete in a shoot'emup or tennis video game, and watching a script parse a mass of noisy data to produce a clean easily processed data set.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday October 19 2018, @09:07PM
I give up, they're both more fun if you're drunk?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19 2018, @02:47PM (16 children)
I didn't build my business on an unsustainable model. People and companies want, and pay for, my product/service/whatever. How is me charging for my "product" stripping anyone of their rights?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday October 19 2018, @03:54PM (14 children)
Then you shouldn't be worried. The fact that you are, indicates that you have.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19 2018, @04:35PM (13 children)
Apples and oranges. I am not "worried" about my business, I simply want people to pay for my "product" if they find it to be something they choose to use.
This isn't binary situation no matter how poorly you want to frame it.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Friday October 19 2018, @06:41PM (7 children)
Are are you saying you receive sufficient renumeration but it just bothers you that someone, somewhere, might be using what you made without paying you directly for the privilege?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19 2018, @07:44PM (6 children)
Does it bother me that some may be using my "product" without compensating me for my work? Yes. Would it bother you if your employer (or customers/clients if you run your own business) did not pay you for your work? How often should you be expected to accept that happening before you think it was enough (or too much)? Would you put up with your boss skipping paying you an entire paycheck? More? Less?
Any work I give away for free (e.g., to charities) is mine to give away, as are the donations I give. If I do not donate my work I do not believe it is unreasonable for me to be paid for my work.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Friday October 19 2018, @07:54PM (2 children)
No, actually, as long as I receive sufficient renumeration for my work it doesn't bother me a bit that sometimes people who didn't directly contribute to that renumeration benefit from my work. To the contrary, I'd say it's a point of pride. Any time you make the world a better place, you benefit many people who did not and will not pay you squat. Many people who haven't been born yet, and who won't be born until after you die, if you're lucky! It's absurd to be bothered by that, petty and twisted.
"If I do not donate my work I do not believe it is unreasonable for me to be paid for my work. "
And again, no one has suggested otherwise in any way.
But you seem to have stipulated that you ARE being paid for your work, correct? "Sufficient renumeration." That's not the issue you say.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19 2018, @09:59PM (1 child)
That's a slick way of avoiding the question. If you work for a company, and sometimes they don't pay you for the hours you work, is that OK with you?
- If yes, how often will you accept that? A few hours per paycheck? Maybe a whole paycheck one in a while?
- If no, why not? And why should someone else not get paid for their work if it's not OK for you not to get paid for your work?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday October 20 2018, @02:53AM
How about this - my employer pays me just fine, but lots of people other than my employer make use of my work, those other people don't pay me a cent. Some of them don't even make an indirect financial contribution to me.
And that's just fine. I get paid for what I do. I don't expect to collect residuals in perpetuity on every job I ever did.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday October 19 2018, @09:15PM (1 child)
My ex-bosses haven't paid me for programming done since I quit working there, although I know they still use my software. They own the copyright so I only mean "my" in the sense that I wrote it, not that I own it. I don't really care, because I seem to have plenty of money...
No matter how much people don't like it, the future of "software like a book or vinyl record" will die out in favor of working on contract kinda like kickstarter or living off support contracts. Some biz models work, some don't, and no amount of legal support can keep a dead business model alive indefinitely.
I got a corporate overlord to donate money to a guy's patreon who wrote a FOSS library I used in a product that was license-compatible with a undistributed internal project I was working on; that's the future of the whole software dev world. How do you propose to "steal" this dude's FOSS library from him via google searches? He wants as many people as possible to download and use it for free, although he's making plenty of money semi-indirectly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 20 2018, @01:08AM
We seem to put up with court orders for jury duty.
Everyone else involved in the dispute is getting paid.
Except the juror. Which is compelled by order of the court.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday October 19 2018, @09:18PM
> Does it bother me that some may be using my "product" without compensating me for my work? Yes.
Then, libraries and used book and record stores bother you? Friends trading paperback books and listening to each other's CD and DVD collections, and playing on each other's computers, that bothers you too?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19 2018, @06:41PM (1 child)
Everything you've said here indicates that this is a blatant lie. You expect people to believe that you're not worried about your business, but that you're merely worried about people not paying for your "product," which is directly related to your business. Okay.
You're playing word games, just like a typical copyright thug.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19 2018, @07:48PM
Sorry that your feelings are hurt. It sounds like it is clouding your judgement.
I'm not playing word games. I'm simply being accurate and precise. This [soylentnews.org] should answer your assertions. If not, read it again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19 2018, @06:43PM (2 children)
Your product is your performance, not the recording. The recording is advertisement. And if I have a copy, it is mine, and I have the right share or dispose of it as I see fit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19 2018, @07:38PM (1 child)
Sorry, I'm not a musician. But thanks for playing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19 2018, @09:22PM
Then you work for hire. Keep your ideas to yourself until someone pays.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 20 2018, @06:48AM
I don't want your "product".
Ewww.
If people are willing to pay you for your "product" then good on them.
Again. Ewww.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19 2018, @02:06PM (12 children)
Yes, the "something" being copyright enforcement.
You are feeling perfectly entitled to steal out of taxes people pay, to fatten your wallet. Worse, the money allocated to "fighting illegal copying" is taken out of funds intended for protecting people from real criminals. Someone will get robbed, raped, or killed to indulge your greed. But it is A-OK by the likes of you.
See, everything in this world to be given to you has to be taken from someone else. When the cost to the society from the taking far exceeds the benefits to it from you being indulged, it is preferable that your "product" does not exist at all, and that you support yourself doing something less harmful.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday October 19 2018, @02:46PM (8 children)
Above post is part of the story. It falls short of pointing out that copyright infringement is a CIVIL MATTER, to be enforced by the copyright holder. Uncle Sam, or "The State", or "People" have no interest in copyright enforcement. The copyright holder is responsible for investigating, finding, and prosecuting civil infringements, not the police department, or any other branch or level of government.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday October 19 2018, @04:00PM (3 children)
Below a certain threshold, copyright infringement is indeed only a tort. Above that threshold, a single act can constitute both a tort and a crime. I don't know the Australian law, but in the United States, the threshold is $2,500.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday October 19 2018, @04:17PM (2 children)
Alright - and how many files are worth $2500? That woman who was prosecuted, and ordered to pay millions of dollars certainly didn't download or share $2500 worth of songs. Jamie, something or other - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._Thomas-Rasset [wikipedia.org]
24 songs aren't worth $2500 bucks, to anybody, unless you happen to be selling the rights in their entirety.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19 2018, @04:41PM (1 child)
The vulturous parasites that comprise the RIAA's legal teams cannot suffer enough. If a judge had asked them "So, is it your position that each song is worth more than you charge per hour?" they would have had to admit their inflationary tactics or commit perjury.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday October 19 2018, @04:49PM
RIAA should be outlawed on the basis of collusion. The various companies represented by RIAA are colluding in many different ways, basically to entrap people.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday October 19 2018, @05:54PM (3 children)
Well I agree with you in spirit.
Uncle Sam, or "The State", or "People" have no interest in copyright enforcement.
Unfortunately for us, this is in the constitution:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
I say we dust off and repeal it from orbit. It's the only way to be safe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19 2018, @07:51PM (2 children)
I think the strict interpretation of that part of I:8:8 is what is lacking.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday October 19 2018, @08:51PM (1 child)
Also, does "securing ... the exclusive Right" really "promote the Progress"? That assumption should not go unchallenged, and indeed it's been demonstrated many times that it is wrong, even backwards.
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday October 20 2018, @03:42PM
Well, when the original copyright act was passed, back in 1710 or so, the idea was that by giving a limited monopoly would see more works go into the public domain, and therefore advance learning by having a large freely available public domain. (The original ACT was named something like an Act to promote learning, which the Americans changed to promoting the useful arts and sciences, which at the time covered most education).
If copyright terms were still a reasonable short time, I think it would still be true that people would be incentivized to produce works and a few years later those works would be public domain and others could build on them.
The problem is the reasonable time has been replaced with as long as possible and the original idea that everyone could benefit from the public domain has gone away. Look at Disney who routinely sues people for using the public domain because they can claim that the derivative works are being infringed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19 2018, @03:05PM (2 children)
Huh? I don't take "steal" anything, and I certainly don't do business with any government agencies, so I am not on the receiving end of anyone's "taxes" (though I pay them a lot of my own).
Nice straw man you've got there, trying to equate me earning a living with depriving people of safety. I am not responsible for the poor performance of those in Congress. They rarely - if ever - vote my interests. And if enough funding is not being provided to fight violent crime then more money should be allocated. Let's cut back on the corporate welfare and fund things that actually help the people who live in our country.
There is more than one or two agencies "fighting crime", and each agency can certainly do more than one thing at a time. Also, just because things like fraud, money laundering, etc aren't violent crimes doesn't mean they should be ignored because it's funding that could go towards violent crime. There should be enough funding for all crime.
Nothing is "given" to me - not by you, not by the government and not by the world. I work hard, and have worked decades at improving my skills and my craft. Being in business, and selling my "product", doesn't take anything away from anyone. Any person or company that wants my "product" should pay for it, just as I am expected to pay for things I want/need/use/consume/whatever.
I'm doing something "harmful" because you don't want to pay for a product or service? All of this blather sure sounds like you think the world owes you everything and anyone who works or betters themselves make you look bad.
Still, you've said nothing addressing the basic question of why people or companies who want my "product" shouldn't pay for it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19 2018, @06:39PM (1 child)
Whether they should pay for your data or not is subjective. However, what is inconceivable to me is this idea that the government should prevent people from sharing certain data simply so some people can make more money and so maybe we'll see an increase in the amount of data deemed to be valuable. The ends don't justify the means.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19 2018, @07:57PM
Isn't that how capitalism works?
Since you brought up data, is it OK for companies to share your data without your consent and without you being compensated?
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday October 19 2018, @04:04PM (1 child)
How much ought people to value a movie studio's time in having produced a movie over 70 years ago? Why should a single copy of Song of the South be worth 176.25 billion USD, the current market capitalization of The Walt Disney Company?
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday October 19 2018, @09:41PM
Interesting that you choose Song of the South for an example ;)