Interesting article on copyright and filesharing

Don't think the article is full of flames btw (can't help but notice this topic seems a bit hot on sumea, though it's had lots of posts elswhere) [;)] it really is a good read.

had a read through, interesting stuff. Spose it was only a matter of time before the pirate bay got nabbed (allthough the differences in piracy laws in sweeden did help it live a while longer) but its like pushing out bubbles under wallpaper, another one will just pop up somewhere else.

Actually I believe they're already up and running again- there was a headline about it on reddit.com and afaik they've done nothing illegal. I think the pirate bay was formed by a Swedish filesharing political party.

Edit: from slashdot http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/06/03/1220249.shtml
quote:
Many readers have submitted news that The Pirate Bay is back online, operating for now as "The Police Bay." Writes one anonymous submitter: "Pirate Bay got new hardware, moved the servers abroad and used recent backups. So the only bad side-effect of this police raid is that hundreds of clients of the ISP PRQ still have not got their servers back from the police. When the police did the raid on Wednesday, they took Pirate Bay from Bankgirot's secure server room. Then they also took all the servers in PRQ colocation facility STH3, effectively disabling a lot of small companies. The connection between PRQ and TPB? - Same owners, nothing more, this is beginning to become a huge scandal in Sweden with coverage on TV and all newspapers 4 days in a row.

Although obviously torrent files don't actually hold any copyrighted information, so it's been interesting to see how companies and associations have been tackling the bittorrent issue.

It's also been interesting to see how different countries are treating copyright, and the headaches that organisations like the MPAA or the RIAA must have when they try to deal with it.

Another site in the news recently is AllofMp3.com. Hosted in Russia and selling songs for something like 10 cents each, without paying any royalties to the copyright owners. Apparently, that website may cause some trouble for Russia [url="http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/06/06/03/1727232.shtml"]joining the World Trade Organization[/url]. It's actually quite surprising how many these Russian MP3 sites have cropped up in recent times. Do a search for mp3 in google and you'll see them.

Also, Kotaku had a news item about a store in Russia that sells bootlegged games where they just couldn't get the [url="http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/max-payne-2/max-payne-mispellings-176856.p…"]tricky name of Max Payne[/url] correct on the DVD cover [:D] (it looks like they were also selling Max Payne 2 mods as well o_O ). I can imagine the kind of spellings on bootlegged games and movies from China. [:)]

Don't know about on the mainland, but in Hong Kong the packaging on pirate media is just as flashy as the originals... They try to make it really bloody hard to tell pirate from genuine (tourist trade). There are also huge warning signs in the airport warning travellers about all the trouble they can get themselves into taking cds/dvds out of the country

And as for the RIAA and MPAA- suing fans really isn't very bright at all... I personally think they should take a break from taking grandmas and 5 year olds to court. The RIAA have even tried to sue someone who has never had a computer in their home http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/02/marie-lindor-to-m… , she's forcing it to court [:D] This one is interesting- seems like they have problems in their tracking software, they're just picking names to sue at random, or they've been cracked.

As was pointed out on slashdot yesterday The Pirate Bay is likely more legal than google: apparently the full film Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was available for streaming and download all weekend from google video... That's copyrighted material hosted on google's servers, and google certainly index the sleazy and nasty side of the 'net. Just like The Pirate Bay... Wonder when google will get raided for having links to warez in their search engine...

Sorry Souri, shouldn't have mentioned those wonderful, honest and ethical associations... Got me started it did [;)] http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6076665.html under the heading "MPAA accused of hiring a hacker" (though CNET are misusing the word hacker- hackers make things, crackers break things. This is a cracker).

quote:
One MPAA executive is quoted in Torrentspy's lawsuit as saying: "We don't care how you get it," referring to the alleged assignment to dig up information on Torrentspy.

Some of the information that the man allegedly pilfered included a spreadsheet containing Torrentspy income and expenses from January to June 2005, copies of private e-mails between Torrentspy employees, detailed information on the company's servers, and billing information, according to the lawsuit.
Torrentspy alleges in the suit that the man, whom the company refers to as the "informant," has provided documents that prove the nature of his relationship with the MPAA, including a written agreement signed by the hacker and an MPAA executive, Rothken said.

To spell out the "read between the lines" in this out of context quote Torrentspy are suing the MPAA over it.

Its amazing the amount of legal battles that are flying backwards and forwards like some giant mesh of acusations. Id actually like to see a sueing data flow diagram of sorts >.< . The big one that is racketeering ive only heard turn up once from some poor mother of a sue-ee which ofcourse didnt really go far.

It's a bit of a war, and it's about to get really huge with the relase of Vista with all the Treacherous Computing (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html) DRM.

To spell this out I think companies like those in HK making money out of selling pirate works should be hung, drawn and quatered. It's simply not on. On the other hand chasing individual downloaders mostly makes enemies.

Still the problem is that digital data is meant to be able to be copied perfectly and infinite number of times. I'd suggest if you're in the content business it would be a good idea to come up with a business model that exploits this fact rather than fights it. DRM is an attempt to break an innate property of information stored in digital formats, and as such it's likely to be pointless in the long run.

From the Jargon File (maintained by Eric S. Raymond) http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/C/copy-protection.html
quote:
copy protection: n.
A class of methods for preventing incompetent pirates from stealing software and legitimate customers from using it. Considered silly.

The Treacherous Computing link I provided above is written by Richard Stallman- president of the Free Software Foundation. Here's a story he's written about the Brave New World media companies appear to be steering us towards. It's called "The right to read" and is likely to really make you think about things... http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

One would have thought Hollywood would want to keep the Free Software geeks on side- it's these geeks who have freely given Hollywood pieces of critical infrastructure (like Linux) they use to make the movies.

I dont even see how downloading copyright material from a server in another country has anything to do with RIAA/MPAA. wouldnt it just be a customs thing ?

you arnt actually making a copy, just getting some 1's and 0's sent in over the phone cables.

like lorien said, they put the signs up in airports...

oh wait, i better add that i actually am strongly againts copyright infringment. i actually buy cds. even if the artist only gets 4c.

quote:Originally posted by boat
you arnt actually making a copy, just getting some 1's and 0's sent in over the phone cables.

Hmm, interesting point- those 0's and 1's are not actually a copy of a recording/film, they merely represent it. I wouldn't want to try arguing it though: is a digital photograph a photograph? [:)] I'd say it isn't, but it might as well be one.

It's also an interesting point because really every time we view a website we breach copyright regulations: we are viewing a copy that is sent to our computers. What's more web browsers store a cache of what we recieve, which makes it "downloading" as opposed to "streaming"- although the distinction is a false one.

[:)] yeah. but thats kinda my point. the laws just arnt up to scratch for this new internet thingy.

its illeal to bring copied cds into the country in a suitcase, but thats for customs to deal with not the **AA's.

im not saying its legal to get 1's and 0's over the phone line, just that the wrong people are trying to police it.

Cheers [:)]

That's getting into medium issues -- a copy is still a copy in a different medium, it's been argued and lost before, most notably with audio books (books made into audio cd's without licensing or authorisation). It's still the intellectual properties content, just a different medium I guess.

I think your missing my point.

i agree its intelluctual property still, but you dont see the RIAA at airports doing bag inspections.

I just dont see it as a copyright deal. its an importing deal. you arnt making copies, you just importing a copy that was made over seas, the material is copied on the host computer and the client gets it sent to them, if its the phone lines or the mail system i think it should be the same difference.

I think the whole idea of "Intellectual Property" does more harm than good and have thought so for years. Plenty of others think so too- particularly relating to patents.

Here's an argument coming from MARK A. LEMLEY at the Stanford Law School http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=582602

quote:
Abstract:
Courts and scholars have increasingly assumed that intellectual property is a form of property, and have applied the economic insights of Harold Demsetz and other property theorists to condemn the use of intellectual property by others as "free riding." In this article, I argue that this represents a fundamental misapplication of the economic theory of property. The economics of property is concerned with internalizing negative externalities - harms that one person's use of land does to another's interest to it, as in the familiar tragedy of the commons. But the externalities in intellectual property are positive, not negative, and property theory offers little or no justification for internalizing positive externalities. Indeed, doing so is at odds with the logic and functioning of the market. From this core insight, I proceed to explain why free riding is desirable in intellectual property cases except in limited circumstances where curbing it is necessary to encourage creativity. I explain why economic theory demonstrates that too much protection is just as bad as not enough protection, and therefore why intellectual property law must search for balance, not free riders. Finally, I consider whether we would be better served by another metaphor than the misused notion of intellectual property as a form of tangible property.

Boat: Didn't miss your point, you hit it on the head -- My comment was only regarding the translation of content through mediums.

I think the general idea behind IP is fine, the way that it's represented in law and voilently abused/protected is where I find the problem. Same feelings I have on the other side of the fence with the abuse of educational and freedom of data use - people just can't responsibly use things the way they're supposed to be, on both sides of the issue.

quote:Originally posted by J.I. Styles
Same feelings I have on the other side of the fence with the abuse of educational and freedom of data use

Not quite sure what you mean JI, could you expand a bit please?

IP is a very powerful tool. If we removed IP we might as well remove the validity of brand name power. Thus a company like..say..Coka Cola loses its right and laws to have only their drink be called coke cola. The share value plummets and in eastern sectors imitations pop up almost overnight.

IP is really a two-handard sword. It comes with positives and negatives. Corporations rely on it to function and impose its own entity. While independents want it off the face of the earth for the argument of freedom of creativity, rights and speech.

Personally. I'm for retooling the idea of 'IP' for the new generations. Covering over issues related to the Internet and to loosen the tight grip that big entities with IP have over those who don't. [IE: letting developers retain their IP from publishers.]

But that would require worldwide recognition and co-operation so I wouldn't expect it any time soon. Just a lot of the same ?ol silly lawsuits and charges coming about.

Something rather amusing: I gather a swedish company is now providing "RIAA insurance"- they'll insure you against the RIAA suing you!

Anyone speak swedish and want to translate? http://www.tankafritt.nu/

quote:Originally posted by Caroo
Thus a company like..say..Coka Cola loses its right and laws to have only their drink be called coke cola. The share value plummets and in eastern sectors imitations pop up almost overnight.

Hmm bad example: Coke is a trademark. Coke have the recipe and keep it secret. Linux is a trademark. Linus gave the recipe away free to everyone. Others helped make it better.

Coke bet the company on their recipe. IBM bet the company on Linux. Linux "imitations" are everywhere: they're called "distributions". Hasn't done anyone any harm (OK except Microsoft, SCO and a few others) and has done plenty of people a lot of good.

quote:
IP is really a two-handard sword. It comes with positives and negatives. Corporations rely on it to function and impose its own entity. While independents want it off the face of the earth for the argument of freedom of creativity, rights and speech.

Corporations have problems with it too: here's a quote from none other than Bill Gates (1991)

quote:
If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete stand-still today. The solution . . . is patent exchanges . . . and patenting as much as we can. . . . A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high: Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors. Fred Warshofsky, The Patent Wars 170-71 (NY: Wiley 1994).

Which explains MS patenting things like double clicking (US Patent 6,727,830)