Do you respect Intellectual Property?

[The_Iceflash]

Do you respect Intellectual Property and in turn the idea that Intellectual Property is copyrighted material? A big issue that is causing the creation of dramatic legislation is the disrespect and the writing off the existence of intellectual property, what intellectual property means, and when it is or isn't considered violated. Some things can we easily say is violating the copyright of intellectual property that can't really be disputed, such as illegally downloading music and movies. Other things, such properly citing works (something we can all be familiar with when it comes to doing school reports) can get hairy since there are different citation standards that we've come know in MS/HS/college. How would address, handle, and/or fight intellectual property copyright violations that are clearly out of hand (such as illegally downloading) and deal with violations that may not be so black and white?

[Lazario]

Well, since this issue typically boils down to Companies - not creators - who are own by Corporations being the ones who are always insisting A) anything containing copyrighted material (fair use or not) should be taken down, and, B) there should be stricter punishments for any case considered legally violating copyright laws... it's hardly even a matter of Intellectual Property. It's a property, plain and simple. Do I respect Corporation's ownership of others' Intellectual Property? No. They don't respect it either. They only care about making a buck off it. To them, it's not Intellectual- it's Financial.

[Super Aurora]

pretty much what Lazario said.

Also this is showing that the film and music industry are lazy and greedy and that they can't (or rather don't want to) bother to adapt to change or find ways for themselves in finding how to promote their stuff through internet means. They want to stick with the old fashion way and don't want that to change. This is seriously poor poor business decision.

Pirating believe it or not actually help make these companies make more money than they think. As it's a way to promote the product out there for people to take notice of and buy.

Also it's funny how only the big companies are like this. The smaller non-mainstream companies as well as underground indies and punk actually support pirating. Prince for example left the music industry in order go independent due that the music industry are the ones who make the money off of the artist's albums.


This SOPA/protect IP act is bad bad fucking news.

[The_Iceflash]

Well, since this issue typically boils down to Companies - not creators - who are own by Corporations being the ones who are always insisting A) anything containing copyrighted material (fair use or not) should be taken down, and, B) there should be stricter punishments for any case considered legally violating copyright laws... it's hardly even a matter of Intellectual Property. It's a property, plain and simple. Do I respect Corporation's ownership of others' Intellectual Property? No. They don't respect it either. The only care about making a buck off it. To them, it's not Intellectual- it's Financial.

How can a studio make more movies if they don't make any money from their current movies? Many movie makers depend on financial support and marketing power from studios, independent or not, for their films. Record Labels offer things to artists like exposure, marketing, producers, studio time, etc that they normally wouldn't be getting as much of otherwise. Plus there's the fact that creators do make money off of product sold. The point is, spiting the companies also spite the creators. When music and movies are illegally downloaded, the creators suffer as well.

[The_Iceflash]

pretty much what Lazario said.

Also this is showing that the film and music industry are lazy and greedy and that they can't (or rather don't want to) bother to adapt to change or find ways for themselves in finding how to promote their stuff through internet means. They want to stick with the old fashion way and don't want that to change. This is seriously poor poor business decision.

Pirating believe it or not actually help make these companies make more money than they think. As it's a way to promote the product out there for people to take notice of and buy.

How can the companies compete with free? Virtually impossible. How many are actually going to turn around and buy a song after illegally downloading it? Next to none. That's the reality.

There is NO way for labels to compete with illegally downloading. People want for free and changing and adapting isn't going to change that.

Also it's funny how only the big companies are like this. The smaller non-mainstream companies as well as underground indies and punk actually support pirating. Prince for example left the music industry in order go independent due that the music industry are the ones who make the money off of the artist's albums.


This SOPA/protect IP act is bad bad fucking news.

Artists make money off of their albums too. That's a fact. Labels may make a larger percent of each album released (depends on the individual artist's contract, the cost of production going into the album, etc) but artists still make money off of their albums.

[Lazario]

How can a studio make more movies if they don't make any money from their current movies? Many movie makers depend on financial support and marketing power from studios, independent or not, for their films. Record Labels offer things to artists like exposure, marketing, producers, studio time, etc that they normally wouldn't be getting as much of otherwise. Plus there's the fact that creators do make money off of product sold. The point is, spiting the companies also spite the creators. When music and movies are illegally downloaded, the creators suffer as well.

Wait: hold up. I'm not talking about pirating / illegal downloading. I'm talking about what could be considered violation of fair use. Sharing - i.e.: YouTube videos, fan / tribute videos, reviews that use clips from movies and shows, people uploading films / shows / music who are actually interested in promoting commentary and criticism (there are many on YouTube for example), Thatguywiththeglasses.com (and Blip.tv as a whole), etc. Companies + Corporations (divide them amongst yourself/ves however it suits you) have little to no right legally at present to take these sorts of videos down since most of them qualify as "A Transformative Work." Which means: they're not strictly copies. They promote creativity, discussion, etc. However, the C+C want more legal rights to attack, remove, and stamp out these videos and their format because they believe (or can make a legal case that sounds good to lobbyists and/or politicians - again, separate / re-define these however you want) that videos using the entertainment media for commentary and criticism, among other purposes, can arguably "affect the property value" of the movie / tv clip or song byte they are using. At present, C+C have the legal right to sue and stop people actively selling their property. But what they want is the right to stop anyone from using the property in a way they believe lowers the property value. In abstract, this means if someone else's "transformative" use of their property in their mind hurts their ability to sell it in any way. I would assume this includes (these are my terms, I admit they're pretty crude) excessive commentary (using too much footage from the movie/show/song) and 'unnecessary' criticism (let's say claiming a movie is racist is protected by criticism within fair use boundaries because it's a significant social concern but that mocking the movie for being dated in other respects could be considered excessive or unnecessary criticism which turns viewers off from seeking out a copy of the work). I imagine those sorts of things could be argued in a court of law by representatives for the movie studios / corporations owning them and recording industry / corporations.

Anyway, none of this even matters. Really. If SOPA / E Parasite / Protect IP passes- C+C will have the power to take down anything that uses copyrighted media, fair use or not. The wording on these bills is so broad and unspecific that they will obtain the legal right to just shut anyone down. They won't even need to justify or specify their reason. They own the rights, they have the legal ability to just stop it. And then, if they want, seek jail time for the person using their property (or possibly really high fines- I dunno, I've heard a lot more about the jail time over any new fines). And it makes sense that they're not that worried about consequences for or backlash against this because for someone to launch a civil suit in response, it will cost them money. If the Motion Picture Association(s) and Recording industries have more money and power behind them, they will win out when the bill(s) pass(es). Unless a Veto should happen.

How can the companies compete with free? Virtually impossible. How many are actually going to turn around and buy a song after illegally downloading it? Next to none. That's the reality.

There is NO way for labels to compete with illegally downloading. People want for free and changing and adapting isn't going to change that.

It could. You never know. Though, seriously, you really need to re-route your argument. People love getting things free, yes. And many people will steal and not admit it. I've stolen music before. And you're right- the possibility that I will buy it later is next to nothing. But, #1: music stealing technology sucks. You risk contracting viruses. And there's no accounting for the quality / version of the song you get. It's not as easy as you think to just search mp3 download and the song you want and get exactly what you want. It's not worth trying. #2: Nobody who is doing this is actually arguing that it is good. Just because people oppose Protect IP / SOPA doesn't mean they're defending or supporting illegal downloading of music. We all know it's wrong. #3: There are already good, hard laws in place to combat peer-to-peer music stealing, movie and TV sharing / stealing websites. SOPA / Protect IP / E Parasite could re-word their bill to make punishments stricter for people stealing their content. But you'll find the real thieves are under the radar, low profile sites. This bill is so much more about attacking people on YouTube or Blip.tv, high profile figures and sites, because (well, let's start with this) YouTube is a totally free place to play and copy music onto mp3. Sounds freaky, but again- there's a catch. I have literally spent upwards of $30 re-buying music I copied from YouTube because mp3's of YouTube videos are not high quality music files. They suck. They're temporary files to burn on CD and play on your stereo. But again, I cannot make this clear enough: they suck. Just put one on your mp3 / iPod. You'll hear the lousy sound right away. No matter whether you download the YouTube link in "High Quality" or not.

Artists make money off of their albums too. That's a fact. Labels may make a larger percent of each album released (depends on the individual artist's contract, the cost of production going into the album, etc) but artists still make money off of their albums.

Do you think they don't know that?

And, yet... this bill is not exactly being pushed through by Metallica.

[The_Iceflash]

How can a studio make more movies if they don't make any money from their current movies? Many movie makers depend on financial support and marketing power from studios, independent or not, for their films. Record Labels offer things to artists like exposure, marketing, producers, studio time, etc that they normally wouldn't be getting as much of otherwise. Plus there's the fact that creators do make money off of product sold. The point is, spiting the companies also spite the creators. When music and movies are illegally downloaded, the creators suffer as well.

Wait: hold up. I'm not talking about pirating / illegal downloading. I'm talking about what could be considered violation of fair use. Sharing - i.e.: YouTube videos, fan / tribute videos, reviews that use clips from movies and shows, people uploading films / shows / music who are actually interested in promoting commentary and criticism (there are many on YouTube for example), Thatguywiththeglasses.com (and Blip.tv as a whole), etc. Companies + Corporations (divide them amongst yourself/ves however it suits you) have little to no right legally at present to take these sorts of videos down since most of them qualify as "A Transformative Work." Which means: they're not strictly copies. They promote creativity, discussion, etc. However, the C+C want more legal rights to attack, remove, and stamp out these videos and their format because they believe (or can make a legal case that sounds good to lobbyists and/or politicians - again, separate / re-define these however you want) that videos using the entertainment media for commentary and criticism, among other purposes, can arguably "affect the property value" of the movie / tv clip or song byte they are using. At present, C+C have the legal right to sue and stop people actively selling their property. But what they want is the right to stop anyone from using the property in a way they believe lowers the property value. In abstract, this means if someone else's "transformative" use of their property in their mind hurts their ability to sell it in any way. I would assume this includes (these are my terms, I admit they're pretty crude) excessive commentary (using too much footage from the movie/show/song) and 'unnecessary' criticism (let's say claiming a movie is racist is protected by criticism within fair use boundaries because it's a significant social concern but that mocking the movie for being dated in other respects could be considered excessive or unnecessary criticism which turns viewers off from seeking out a copy of the work). I imagine those sorts of things could be argued in a court of law by representatives for the movie studios / corporations owning them and recording industry / corporations.

Anyway, none of this even matters. Really. If SOPA / E Parasite / Protect IP passes- C+C will have the power to take down anything that uses copyrighted media, fair use or not. The wording on these bills is so broad and unspecific that they will obtain the legal right to just shut anyone down. They won't even need to justify or specify their reason. They own the rights, they have the legal ability to just stop it. And then, if they want, seek jail time for the person using their property (or possibly really high fines- I dunno, I've heard a lot more about the jail time over any new fines). And it makes sense that they're not that worried about consequences for or backlash against this because for someone to launch a civil suit in response, it will cost them money. If the Motion Picture Association(s) and Recording industries have more money and power behind them, they will win out when the bill(s) pass(es). Unless a Veto should happen.

How can the companies compete with free? Virtually impossible. How many are actually going to turn around and buy a song after illegally downloading it? Next to none. That's the reality.

There is NO way for labels to compete with illegally downloading. People want for free and changing and adapting isn't going to change that.

It could. You never know. Though, seriously, you really need to re-route your argument. People love getting things free, yes. And many people will steal and not admit it. I've stolen music before. And you're right- the possibility that I will buy it later is next to nothing. But, #1: music stealing technology sucks. You risk contracting viruses. And there's no accounting for the quality / version of the song you get. It's not as easy as you think to just search mp3 download and the song you want and get exactly what you want. It's not worth trying. #2: Nobody who is doing this is actually arguing that it is good. Just because people oppose Protect IP / SOPA doesn't mean they're defending or supporting illegal downloading of music. We all know it's wrong. #3: There are already good, hard laws in place to combat peer-to-peer music stealing, movie and TV sharing / stealing websites. SOPA / Protect IP / E Parasite could re-word their bill to make punishments stricter for people stealing their content. But you'll find the real thieves are under the radar, low profile sites. This bill is so much more about attacking people on YouTube or Blip.tv, high profile figures and sites, because (well, let's start with this) YouTube is a totally free place to play and copy music onto mp3. Sounds freaky, but again- there's a catch. I have literally spent upwards of $30 re-buying music I copied from YouTube because mp3's of YouTube videos are not high quality music files. They suck. They're temporary files to burn on CD and play on your stereo. But again, I cannot make this clear enough: they suck. Just put one on your mp3 / iPod. You'll hear the lousy sound right away. No matter whether you download the YouTube link in "High Quality" or not.

Artists make money off of their albums too. That's a fact. Labels may make a larger percent of each album released (depends on the individual artist's contract, the cost of production going into the album, etc) but artists still make money off of their albums.

Do you think they don't know that?

And, yet... this bill is not exactly being pushed through by Metallica.

Good points! Thanks for clearing that all out.

[Super Aurora]

Like Lazario point out (and thanks Lazario for filling a lot LOL), Iceflash, This bill isn't really mean for them to combat pirating, that's just a shitty cover up ploy from the corporations and lobbyist for their attempt to "control" and have power over the internet. This is why Google, youtube, and other high profile internet sites are opposing it to great extent. And for a good reason too. You are being a tool if you honestly believe the corporation is doing this to fight pirating.

Also you are aware that one of the news I heard is that the members who opposes to the bill were not allow into the Congress hearing? I'm unsure what it meant by that but That sound like they're trying really hard at attempt to get this shit pass. And it unconstitutional.

How can the companies compete with free? Virtually impossible. How many are actually going to turn around and buy a song after illegally downloading it? Next to none. That's the reality.

There is NO way for labels to compete with illegally downloading. People want for free and changing and adapting isn't going to change that.

Everyone wants free shit. that's human nature. But it's not impossible to adapt to new ways in the market. It works before for many places

Also many people have watch/read something online "illegally" and then later bought the product itself because they like it. I have done that many times especially with manga.

Companies are exaggerating how bad pirating is. It's a gimmick attempt for them have more power and make more money.

Artists make money off of their albums too. That's a fact. Labels may make a larger percent of each album released (depends on the individual artist's contract, the cost of production going into the album, etc) but artists still make money off of their albums.

Very very little compared to the label company. They make their money mostly off concerts and merchandise. This is why many artist are now turning to itunes to promote music. It allows them make more money off their own work than if they do with CD label company. That and not many people buys CD anymore. It's all about Mp3. Many music CD retails store has went out of business because of itunes and mp3. This is what ment by business needing to adapt to new standard ways.

[Mayhem]

How can the companies compete with free? Virtually impossible. How many are actually going to turn around and buy a song after illegally downloading it? Next to none. That's the reality.

Lazario summed things up quite well, but I can vouch that myself and a great many other people I know use being able to download stuff online as a quality test. If we like the material, then generally we end up buying it to support the artist in question. Sure, it might be seen that a lot of today's younger generation download illegally "just because", but the conversant argument in response is that for all the bleating about "lost sales" that come from publishing giants, the reality is that the majority of people who illegally download wouldn't have bought the product in the first place. So there are no huge swathes of "lost sales" being dreamt up.

I would add on top that quite a bit of my downloading incorporates media that I have no legal access to here in the UK for a variety of reasons (it's not shown on TV, it's not sold on DVD etc). So how else am I supposed to watch it?

[Lazario]

Thanks, everyone.

How can the companies compete with free? Virtually impossible. How many are actually going to turn around and buy a song after illegally downloading it? Next to none. That's the reality.

Lazario summed things up quite well, but I can vouch that myself and a great many other people I know use being able to download stuff online as a quality test. If we like the material, then generally we end up buying it to support the artist in question. Sure, it might be seen that a lot of today's younger generation download illegally "just because", but the conversant argument in response is that for all the bleating about "lost sales" that come from publishing giants, the reality is that the majority of people who illegally download wouldn't have bought the product in the first place.

I forgot to mention that when I was doing my #1, 2, 3. In my mind, as a downloader and potential buyer (and not for trumped up $1.29 prices, unless I'm feeling rich at the moment- that $0.30 price hike is ridiculous for me and I go somewhere else where it's cheaper or get the song on mp3 Credit from Napster- you get 1 song free for every dollar you pay them monthy for their entire service, to listen to any song they have in their library anytime you're online and they're operational), I'm thinking I have to hear it out before buying it. I can do this with Napster which I pay a VERY small monthly price ($5.00 flat, not a single price fluctuation in nearly 2 years) and can hear any song that isn't provided in 0:30 second sample (which really is incredibly rare and I can use YouTube for as long as SOPA doesn't pass) to try out. So, I believe that I pay the industry back for what I've stolen. Not to mention I've actually re-bought over a dozen tracks just because a computer glitch / malfunction used to include little *CLICK* noises at the end of tracks I burned from Napster. So, maybe I stole Murray Head, Taco, Boys Don't Cry, a couple other tracks for an 80's compilation (songs which I *could* have stolen if they were tracks I copied for free borrowing some Best-of-the-80's CD from a friend), and 1 Lady Gaga song ("Fashion" - which they expect you to buy the damn entire Confessions of a Shopaholic soundtrack just for the 1 song you want). But, I've paid the same basic companies back to get over a dozen songs by Madonna, Britney Spears, Ke$ha, Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Lily Allen, a couple Katy Perry, several others. They certainly haven't lost a penny in my case. Not a one.

[Goliath]

The creation of "dramatic legislation" is not caused by things like illegal downloading. It's created because the powers that be want more control over our lives and what we do on the internet. That's the real reason. What they tell you about "intellectual property" is just a cover-up to make you swallow it.

Do I respect intellectual property? Well, I never download any movies or cd's and that's because it's too complicated, it takes too much time and most of all, when I really want a dvd or cd, I prefer the original. I do dowload individual songs from peer-to-peer networks and no, I don't feel bad about that. I've gotten to know some amazing artists that way and bought their cd's, which I otherwise wouldn't have done. Everything on the internet is fair game to me. You don't want your texts or images taken by others? Don't throw them up on the web. This is only meant for private use, e.g. me saving images or texts for personal usage. I don't think it's fair to publish things on your own website and present them as your own when you ripped them from another site.

[Mayhem]

I also rip my CDs to MP3s which, until recently, was actually illegal in the UK. The only time I've downloaded MP3s that I already had the CD for was when I discovered one had "bit rot" (it was from the early 90s) and so wouldn't play the last three tracks.

[jpanimation]

Recording artists don't give a shit if you illegally download their CDs, it's the record companies that are bitching. Why? If you illegally download a CD (free advertising), that's a onetime fee of ~$5-10 the band / record company / distributers will lose, big deal. If the band did their job right and gets you hooked from that illegal download, then they stand to make MUCH more in merchandise and here's the big one - concerts! Depending on who you're going to see, a concert can cost anywhere from $20-200 per person for a couple of hours and depending on how big a fan you are, you may see them again the next time they tour. Artists don't make shit from their albums, most of the profit goes to the record companies. Artists get about 90% of their income from concerts and the record companies in most cases don't get anything, which is why they're pissed. As Laz said: "To them, it's not Intellectual- it's Financial."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201007 ... 0186.shtml

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/164391 ... list.jhtml

As for movies, studios aren't handling the piracy problem right (a lot of what they do only encourages it). First of all, when people purchase a movie on DVD or Blu-ray, they should only be getting top quality presentations and top quality supplements. These are the two things that piracy can't compete with and to skimp on either only lessens the gap between them (look at how Disney has been treating it's DVD audience as of late). Second of all, their shouldn't be advertisements on discs that people purchase, enough said. Lastly (and this should work like a preview system), they should stream their movies online in SD with commercials (if the viewer cared about quality, they wouldn't be watching them on computers or iPods in the first place and they would instead be buying Blu) or have the commercials removed for a small (and I mean small) fee. Then if people like it, they can purchase it. It may not sound like good business but just look at how many people still purchase movies even though they can watch them on YouTube. I don't think that segment that buys will suddenly stop and at least then the studios would be cashing in on the millions of people that watch their movies on YouTube. This way, no one has an excuse to commit piracy. Studios should also consider re-releasing their classics to theaters, no gimmicks. If anything, The Lion King has proved that their is money to be made here, especially since they're digitally distributed to theaters.

Let me be clear, this is in no way an endorsement of piracy. That is stealing, which is obviously illegal. What I am doing is understanding why piracy is happening and making suggestions to studios on how to curb it with a progressive approach.

Either way, I get all my CDs and Blu-rays from the library. If I like them enough, I buy them after the fact.

[Goliath]

If I had never (illegally) downloaded some of Dylan's greatest hits, I wouldn't have owned 25 original cd's of his now.

[littlefuzzy]

Do I respect Intellectual Property? Less and less...

As a writer, I should say I support it. However, when freedoms are being trampled on in order to supposedly curtail piracy, that makes me angry (SOPA act, etc.)

What about something like this?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57326 ... es-patent/

If some company like Apple can get a VERY BROAD patent that covers "location-based services", and then targets Google, Facebook, or whoever, because they use something similar, I think that's bad. Yeah, if someone makes a J-Pad that looks and works like an IPad, sue 'em, that's copyright enfringement, but this is more like managing to get a patent on a "square or rectangular writing device made from wood pulp" and then suing publishers, stationery companies, and even toilet paper manufacturers (because some people have written on toilet paper.

1. Should some pirate be able to sell Brave on copied DVDs? NO
2. Should someone be able to put out "Larry Cotter and the Magician's Stone?" As a parody, maybe, as a plagiarized copy of the work, NO!
3. Should a pirate site have copies of Brave for download? Not in my opinion, although someone might be on the fence about seeing it, download it, and THEN go see it in the theaters and buy the disc because they enjoyed it so much.
4. Should a website be able to put up a torrent of Song of the South? Yes, Disney isn't losing any money from that.
5. Should people be able to post clips from Family Guy on Youtube? Yes, how does it hurt? The same applies to a gameplay video, or using a clip of something in a review.
6. Should people be able to remix some things if they credit the originals? Yes, particularly if they aren't getting paid for it.
7. Should entertainment conglomerates charge 15 bucks for a movie ticket or CD, 20-30 for a DVD or Blu-ray, or even 50 bucks for a 3-D Blu-ray? Not in this economy. They are blaming pirates for their loss of revenue, not the general public's lower amount of disposable income.
8. Does piracy HELP artists sometimes? Yes, look at Metallica. Early in their career, bootleg cassettes were circulated, creating many new fans who bought albums and merchandise, and went to concerts.
9. Should a person who bought something (movie, music, etc.) be able to copy that for personal use? YES!
10. If a kid downloads a movie, should the media company sue the parents for thousands upon thousands of dollars? NO!

[Sotiris]

People Who Illegally Download Files Are Treated Like Common Criminals in Denmark
https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-blogger ... es-111121/

[Super Aurora]

This bill won't likely to happen now.

Adobe, Microsoft, Apples have all pulled out of supporting it as they realize how stupid it is.

[Dr Frankenollie]

-

[phan258]

I took a class a few semesters back in which we talked a LOT about copyright laws & piracy. The teacher was in favor of downloading/piracy... we even watched some clips hailing the folks who run that Pirate Bay website as heroes. I still have a lot of trouble understanding the issue as a whole, though. When I think about myself, if I ever achieve my dream of writing a novel, and if I were to find out my novel had been copied & put up for free download on the internet, meaning fewer books sold....I would not be happy, if my contract with my publisher stipulated that I made money off each hard copy sold.

But if my contract was that I gained one flat fee for selling the rights & that was it....I wouldn't care, and actually I'd be thrilled to get more & more readers who would hopefully love my work and buy books in the future, thereby getting me more publishing deals/acclaim/what have you.

Maybe the future will lie in advertising dollars: popular artists/authors/whatever set up a hub website where you can download, free but legally, sell ad space on that site, and only people who run/download from other sites with the same music/novels/art get penalized, making most traffic go to the official page instead of taking the needless risk of using an outside source.

So I guess I'm not for or against it at the moment, just wishing I had a better grasp of the topic, haha!

[Goliath]

People Who Illegally Download Files Are Treated Like Common Criminals in Denmark
https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-blogger ... es-111121/

Something's rotten in the state of Denmark...