Protect IP

[Greebo]

It isn't stealing, it is copyright infringement. Modern media is a business model that has become successful over the last handful of decades and thus money is being applied to corrupt and extend the original contours of copyright. Threats of job losses are dire hyperbole and made up - and as a counter other more rigorous studies have shown the economy growing faster with less copyright.

"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone. "
Jack Valenti

[Ashenfury]

I understand that copyrights are there for a reason but let's not blow this out of perspective.

So I can never publicly post another concert video in my life? A 30sec concert video of me getting moshed by angry rednecks would definitely be a hit in today's legal climate but if this bill passes that makes me not only a criminal but a federal criminal. Screw that! Here is the real kicker and it's already been mentioned: If I actively and knowingly engage in copyright infringement I do it under the radar. I would never buy a new CD and post every track straight to a black screen video of music on YouTube. Nobody does that! As Brig said some artists WANT that but the service provider (youtube) won't allow it.

The only person that could really analyze my traffic is my ISP (who shuts people down regularly for it). I'm sure there are ways to hide it even from my ISP but they are above and beyond my knowledge. The bill is a good idea and a step in the right direction for modernization of digital rights but it oversteps moral and social boundaries that we the people have.

[Pincus]

I think people need to, you know, read a book once in a while.

[Ashenfury]

I'm still stacked up on Diablo lore books but this looks like a good read.

[Swifthoof]

I agree with Ash, something needs to be done, but there are better ways of making this work than the IP rule. As I said earlier the industry is adapting.

Interestingly, prior to the internet, it was considered to be an infringement of human rights to take the intellectual property of another without rewarding them appropriately.

Also agree with Pincus, more books, as long as they are printed and not illegally downloaded! But why doesn't that chap give his book away for free? I should probably buy it, scan it and put it online. Seems like he doesn't believe in what he writes!

[Greebo]

http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf

But it seems to be down.

Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity (2004) (published in paperback as Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity) is a book by law professor Lawrence Lessig that was released on the Internet under the Creative Commons Attribution/Non-commercial license (by-nc 1.0) on March 25, 2004

[Therean]

There is a difference between "information" in academics and a product that can be saved digitally such as a computer program, or a work of art such as a song.

If I cannot sell my product, because you just made it worthless and free to anyone who wants to download it, I cannot be a professional. You just put me out of work. I will have to change jobs to feed my kids? Or do I just rely on the charity of the people benefiting from my work?

This is why cloud computing and SaaS (Software as a Service) (read MMO/Steam) are taking off. Companies are no longer "releasing" their products, but only licensing them for use. I suspect as we get closer to an online world, you will no longer be able to "download" anything. You will have to be connected to the internet to play your music for example.

This is similar to the way books are going with Kindle and Kobo.

I have no idea why people think that because a product is easy to steal, it should be morally correct to steal it.

There is no practical difference between academic information, or the data of a picture or a song. It's all 1's and 0's now, data. All media has become infinitely transferrable. Which is wonderful for the prospects of society- but as you say, dire for media producers using old business models.

First of all I would say I don't think that media producers like the two of us should be put out of a livelihood. Rather, I think that the livelihood in question should no conflict with the information liberation, but rather embrace it (Though for some this is easier said than done- authors especially). Secondly, I would add that pirating data isn't 'stealing'- the original is not taken, but merely duplicated. If by some brilliant innovation Chevrolet Pick up trucks could be infinitely duplicated and sent around the world for next to no cost, I would not endorse the motor industry lobbying the government outlaw this practice and force everyone in the world to pay $50,000 per car. Such it is with the MPAA and the RIAA- they use their vast wealth to bribe the governments of the world into making progress illegal to keep their business alive; rather than adapt to the change in the game embodied in the internet.

Did you know the printing press was outlawed when it was invented in Europe? The Catholic church, the monopoly on book production (through the resource of literate monks) lambasted it as blasphemous and scandalous that any uneducated, unholy, layman could publish whatsoever they pleased. Of course, they lost this fight against the forward march of society. So too will the publishing industry; history and economics is against them.

[Therean]

I understand that copyrights are there for a reason but let's not blow this out of perspective.

There were artists before there were copyrights. IP is an invention of the corporate establishment to legislate miniature market monopolies for their own exorbitant profits- they've never had the artist in mind. All of the great composers and renaissance artists lived and worked in a time without IP.

[Greebo]

IP is an invention of the corporate establishment to legislate miniature market monopolies for their own exorbitant profits- they've never had the artist in mind..

Not strictly true about the origins but most certainly true now.

[Abric]

Louis C.K recently released his new hour special via the interwebs. It is 5 bucks and was done through the majority of his money. The reason for this is that he wanted to get out of the bullshit of distribution and just get his product (i.e. him) to his fans.

While he is not even close to the first person doing this, he is in a growing number of artists and creators who are taking control of their own destiny. The entertainment industry, especially in the music and movie industry, are a dying beast. Music is grasping at straws, but the movie are fighting back and they are fighting back hard.

I would go far as to say ANYTHING the movie companies are speaking on as a group (through lobbyists, the guilds, or directly from mega-companies) is bullshit - and no matter how they want to slice it... this is about money going to the people AROUND the product creators - not the product creators themselves.

Gotta suck that life blood out, baby!

[Greebo]

/me asplodes. Abric and I agreeing on something? Unpossible!

[Abric]

If the conversation drifts from WoW and foreign policy, you'll find we Beard Brothers share much... minus the love for American women. You can keep'em!

[Greebo]

foreign and domestic policy

Fixed that for ya! Now come on over here and gimme a big ol' beard rub ya big galoot.

[Therean]

I absolutely agree. As long as there are creative people with ideas people want to indulge- there will be money for them in the sharing of those ideas. It's just a matter of how they approach it, with consideration that once those ideas are released, they can't be contained for further profit. It is the giant blood loaded tick of the recording and publishing industries that are being made redundant by the internet- not the artists themselves.

Were IP obliterated tomorrow, for most creative content producers this would be a good a thing- but also quite different. It would be exceedingly difficult to turn a profit on your art if you were unknown. Then again, with the internet, it is easier than ever to get yourself out there and build up a following. Once an artist has built up a captive audience of followers, money can be made in a number of different ways- from merchandising, advertising, endorsements, and live appearances. Another big difference would be that artists would be obliged to keep working to keep getting paid. You can't write one awesome book, or record one platinum album then live off the royalties of that.

All in all being an artist would entail more work, but that work would yield more reward- the artist's share of the profits would be spectacularly higher. Then again they would need to be good business people too. All inall it'd be good for the industry and good for society, but a massive change that would require adjustment.

[Thalevia]

Video from a group that went to DC to talk to Senator's staff about the bills. A few insights from people who will be directly affected.

http://blip.tv/nostalgia-chick/mr-aweso ... qus_thread