BitTorent going legal

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,979
@JJ - Note that the second quote in Post #20 is attibuted to me but it is actually someone else's. If you can, please correct that. Thanks.

The whole issue of property protection, particularly IP, is by it's very nature highly convoluted. Depending on how you phrase the argument, diametrically opposed positions can both seem perfectly rational and fair.

Having said that, there are plenty of aspects of not only current law but also common opinion that baffle me. We put "artists" up on some pedestal and talk about how their work, be it a song or a painting or whatever, should be protected for huge lengths of time (or even forever) and how no one else that is involved in the production and distribution of that work is really doing anything, yet the person (people) that designed GPS, Blu-Ray, Bluetooth, the MP3 standard, (continue with a list of several millions of items that we all benefit from) didn't deserve any more than getting paid for the time they actually worked on the project. But who actually contributed more to society?

Now, while I might feel that it is a shame that some actor or musician or football player or author makes millions while a doctor, engineer, soldier, or firefighter makes a pittance in comparison, I don't have a problem with it to the degree that it is the result of a free market. If someone can get millions of people to pay to come see their concert or buy their CD or watch them play, then more power to them. I'm don't want to see the government declare that such-and-such band can't play any more concerts or has to cut their ticket prices for future concerts because they have already made enough profit.
 

THE_RB

Joined Feb 11, 2008
5,438
@JJ - Note that the second quote in Post #20 is attibuted to me but it is actually someone else's. If you can, please correct that. Thanks.
...
Fixed, sorry about that! It was an error in cut-and-pasting.

... I don't want to see the government declare that such-and-such band can't play any more concerts or has to cut their ticket prices for future concerts because they have already made enough profit.
Yeah I agree with that point. I was speaking more re people copying of the work, and the potential penalties. Not for placing restrictions on the artist.

If someone copies work which is obsolete there is very little harm and hurts nobody because no sale was ever lost, compared to copying work in its peak which might directly hurt sales. Currently the laws do not cope with this difference, and just treat all copying as equally immoral.

Then you get those ridiculous figures where they count the number of times a movie was copied from bittorrent, then multiply that by the average someone pays if they went to the movie theatre and including snacks etc, and say "the copying of this movie has cost the movie industry XX million dollars" like it's a fact.

The real fact is that the copying of that movie cost the movie industry very little as 95%-99% of the people that copied it would not EVER have paid to see it at the movies or bought it at retail DVD price. Those REAL figures are never presented and the industry giants use the fake figures to push through unjust laws.
 

takao21203

Joined Apr 28, 2012
3,702
The real fact is that the copying of that movie cost the movie industry very little as 95%-99% of the people that copied it would not EVER have paid to see it at the movies or bought it at retail DVD price. Those REAL figures are never presented and the industry giants use the fake figures to push through unjust laws.
How did you obtain that number?

Many movies are now available on youtube, even if not always in good quality, and not in full resolution.

It is well good enough to take a peek and see if you'd like that movie.

It seems to be that the movie industry is largely tolerating these uploads (with some exceptions).

I don't of course want to imply that you are affected by it, but it is kind of schizophrenic.

On the one hand, you'd want to watch a movie or listen to a song, thus identify with the story, the actors, or the musicians.

They had a lot of efforts and also high costs to do the production.

On the other hand, you don't want to compensate them for their work!

Or is it that you just decide they already made enough money?

This is exactly why we have laws. The descision making process about such a question is not left to the individual, but it is covered by a law and/or regulations such as EULA (End user license agreement).

I do know that these laws don't always make sense, and they are sometimes unjust.

Nobody will jail you if you occasionally use 2 copies on your PC, and on your laptop (but not both at the same time), but also otherwise are still paying for software.

Same for movies. No one will jail you if you have a large DVD collection, and occasionally use an unlicensed content. For instance it might not reasonably be available for purchase.

I don't fully understand if you speak for yourself, or a hypothetic BitTorrent user base, and if you recommend simply not to care about copyright (that would be kind of a schizophrenic suggestion that copyright laws are invalid and don't have to be followed).

Understand it that way. I don't suggest you have any mental troubles. However, interpreting things as different than they really are may cause such claims. I made this experience myself sometimes. So, ever since then, I am very careful to see things like they really are.

Or is it that you want to contribute to the discussion that copyright laws should be changed? I want to contribute to that discussion myself.

Yes it should be allowed to watch and to download movie excerpts or even full movies on youtube. It should be allowed to use "some" amount of unlicensed productions, if you otherwise pay for regular purchases.

This really should become incorporated into copyright laws.

This of course would not cover obtaining larger amounts of content for free.

I don't want to use the work of Karl Marx for my argumentation all day.
But his elaboration "according to one's abilities" is highly useful.

Content users should at least show efforts to compensate (by purchase) according to their individual ability to do so.

Many software producers already offer still useful downgraded free versions of their software. It is correct, many people never will be able to pay 4000 dollar for a 3D rendering software. While it is also correct these people will not often be able to use such a software in a meaningful way.

Content producers should become encouraged by verifyable regulations to offer their productions according to the individual compensation abilities of their target audience.

Many people are willing to pay "some" money, but they don't want to use for instance all their pocket money when, let say, they attend college. Or similiar situations like that.

Many laws actually never have been designed according to the present economic situation, the existance of the internet, and the avail of modern technology. Many of these laws are antiquated, and if any, they have only become extended by tons of special case exceptions. They are often so complicated (so called legalese) that ordinary people don't understand them properly.

Actually most software license agreements are total nonsense. People can not reasonably become urged to study these agreements each time they install a software. So the "I agree" is only a formality, the actual text remains unread in most case. World of Warcraft for instance, it is an urge to read it even once, who reads the terms each time they insist to agree again? I guess, close to no one.
 

THE_RB

Joined Feb 11, 2008
5,438
How did you obtain that number?
...
It's a "wild ass guess" based on a lifetime of analysing people and their behaviour. Like I said I'm not a bittorrent user, but the ones I know do not ever go out to the movies, so their activity does not in any way affect the income of the movie industry.

...
I don't fully understand if you speak for yourself, or a hypothetic BitTorrent user base, and if you recommend simply not to care about copyright (that would be kind of a schizophrenic suggestion that copyright laws are invalid and don't have to be followed).
...
No I'm not talking for myself, I had made it clear this was a hypothetical GENERAL discussion on bittorrent and the current problems in the entertainment industry copyright law.

Like most of my discussion in the off-topic forum the content of my posts is hypothetical and is not "my" personal view. I'm discussing the facts aboiut the real world, what my personal behaviour or feelings are is irrelevant to this discussion.

...
Understand it that way. I don't suggest you have any mental troubles. However, interpreting things as different than they really are may cause such claims. I made this experience myself sometimes. So, ever since then, I am very careful to see things like they really are.
...
I believe "schizophrenia" applies more to someone who hears voices, not someone who is expressing a different opinion on copyright law to yours. ;) Please explain where I have "interpreted things different from what they are", I thought I had done a decent job raising some concrete real world issues for discussion. :)

...Many laws actually never have been designed according to the present economic situation, the existance of the internet, and the avail of modern technology. Many of these laws are antiquated, and if any, they have only become extended by tons of special case exceptions.
...
I'm glad to agree.

...Actually most software license agreements are total nonsense. People can not reasonably become urged to study these agreements each time they install a software. So the "I agree" is only a formality, the actual text remains unread in most case. ...
Again I'm glad to agree. "Click to agree" buttons are far from legal under common law although some have been enforced, again this is more to do with the power of the big corporations to get their own way rather than what is just or morally right.

How do you feel on the issue I raised of the movie industry quoting every illegal download as "one movie sale lost" or "one family ticket sales lost"?

Do you actually believe that for 1 million downloads of "IronMan6" from bittorrent the movie industry lost 1 million box office family ticket sales and snacks, (or even 1 million single ticket sales, or 1 million DVD sales)?
 

takao21203

Joined Apr 28, 2012
3,702
No I'm not talking for myself, I had made it clear this was a hypothetical GENERAL discussion on bittorrent and the current problems in the entertainment industry copyright law.
I have sometimes obtained such reactions when what I said was too far off the beaten track. The line between genius and insane seems to be only a thin one.

Again I'm glad to agree. "Click to agree" buttons are far from legal under common law although some have been enforced, again this is more to do with the power of the big corporations to get their own way rather than what is just or morally right.

How do you feel on the issue I raised of the movie industry quoting every illegal download as "one movie sale lost" or "one family ticket sales lost"?

Do you actually believe that for 1 million downloads of "IronMan6" from bittorrent the movie industry lost 1 million box office family ticket sales and snacks, (or even 1 million single ticket sales, or 1 million DVD sales)?
Some of the content producers mainly want to make money, they are on drugs as well. People simply should not deal with them at all.

What is true is that there is only a definite of money available to extract from the population. That is defined by the economy, how much money people actually will have available.

Canned entertainment is just one small aspect of life, not a major one.

Software is different as it also can be an important tool to work.
 

Mathematics!

Joined Jul 21, 2008
1,036
exactly, ski mask is illegal only when you use it to break the law
True , laws are only worth anything if people believe in them or follow them ... As well as being enforced :)

I only follow rules that work for me lol :) just kidding
 
Top