Comments on: Has online piracy reached a tipping point?

Across the globe, copyright owners are on the offensive and say jobs and the future of intellectual property is at stake. Can they do anything about it?

[duttonator2]

Greg Sandoval. I'm going to file that name away and remember it, and I hope you all do the same. This is the most one-sided, factually bankrupt, purposely misleading article on digital rights I have ever read outside of RIAA publications. Greg, you should be ashamed of yourself for publishing it under your byline (though I doubt you wrote it yourself). Nothing you say or write from this point forward in your life will be taken seriously. This is your Geraldo moment.

Correcting and clarifying this article would take as many 'graphs as the original, so I'll just mention a few things here. Making a copy of something I own and sharing it with a friend is not "piracy" it's disintermediation. It's a technology-induced shift in business model, not a crime. Using such a loaded word is a calculated tactic on the part of the middle-men suits who undoubtedly paid Greg Sandoval to publish this drivel. And, it's an insult to AK-47 carrying Somali sailors everywhere.

Middle men who create nothing of value, reap insane profits from the creativity of others, and then manipulate the legal system to destroy their rivals *should* lose their jobs, especially in these hard economic times. This piece makes it clear to me that CNET and specifically Greg Sandoval must be counted among them. They are the real pirates.

[kgperry1990]

If they really want no piracy, they should hook up with DreamStream

[ywkhgqo]

if the article was supposed to be fair, how come you never mentioned the one RIAA case against a downloader that was won by the RIAA was OVERTURNED? Only one person has actually gone to court against the RIAA instead of settling and that case was overturned in favor of the downloader. That means the law is not even on the side of these mongrels. If it was fair, how come you didn't mention that Google does the SAME EXACT THING as the pirate bay in terms of finding torrents? TPB hosts no illegal content at all, it only directs user to where they can get the content. This is something that could very easily be done by Google.

One band has already proven that a new business model can be profitable and that is Radiohead. They self produced an album and offered it at any price people were willing to pay. They netted over $6 a CD, making over $2 million for themselves. With no greedy middleman publisher.

If there was any easier and more fair way to download music and movies, I would most certainly use it. I already pay for netflix and use its instant download service because its worth the money. MAKE CONTENT THAT'S WORTH THE MONEY.

[Darkatt]

Actually the RIAA has taken numerous people to court, there is that case in New York where the 8 yr old downloaded 2 songs and the mother was fined 11K and it was upheald even though the Electronic Freedom Foundation paid for her attorney, AND the appeals, and then even paid her fine.

[herzco]

Then again, you all could STOP with your lames excuses and just BUY your content and support those who created it!

[baconstang]

Dream on.

[Mak1954]

The piracy idea within Internet is the complete distortion of reality. Computers are made to make identical copies. These guy who want to sell somethin (there are some that do sell, don't they), like in every shop, have to make a shop, and put the cashiers on exit. How to do that? It is not one's business, it is concern of these whose goods have any supposed worth.
And if they do not have a shop (internet shop), or when they do not keep their goods - metaphorically speaking, they leave them unattended in the middle of the square - they have no right to point to a thief. Even more, the police and courts is not supposed to watch on their unattended goods. And what is in public place - it is free. No shop, no cashier, no security, no sales - no earninng... It is their job to secure what they own, and to make a market.
I am thief only in case when I try to avoid the shop, market, security...
And they don't put even the slightest (research) effort to create a market.
In fact, the pirated pograms in history of computing have spread the computer hardware, and potential market.
For example, the piracy in VHS flourished only in these countries where companies didn't have regulated market, video for rent and all the stuff. The vast "lost profits" in yesterdays countries in Asia was only due their absence.
Today in market tidy countries (fe. music) you have two options: to have a experience of shopping and using/consuming (via iTMS, Amazon... etc), or to cope with jungle on P2P networks, never knowing if you will get what you want wasting your tie to download. The second case (with movies, books, music, news...) is only a search for information, and that is what is "piracy" all about. The music one wants to have all day and night one will always pay.
But sometimes some of media which are not available, and on time, are proliferated by "piracy". And it is only the seek for information, otherwise not available.

[Inconnux]

As a teenager in the 80's my friends and I use to copy tapes and trade them to each other... when I got older I went out and bought these tapes and hundreds more... When the industry switched to CD's and decided that a $10 tape should cost $17 because of the new media (even though it costs less to produce a CD than a tape) I knew that the game was fixed. Same goes for movies, from VHS to DVD to the now ridiculously priced bluray. At some point people are going to take a look at the cost and say enough is enough.

Stopping Pirates bay (and boy did they ask for it by naming their site that!) will do nothing. People will just start up other sites in other countries where they can't be prosecuted. Saying nothing about "old school" internet technologies like Newsgroups and IRC where this material is just as easy to get a hold of. Personally I will miss Pirates bay because I used it to download TV shows that I missed or shows not available in my country... (new episodes of Red Dwarf!!!) I'm sure that the 10 other sites that pop up will be just as good.

[djreatime]

Face it, if people can steal something and no one has to know, they will. That's human nature. There are tons of psychological experinments showing that. People will almost always screw each over over if they think they are anonymous. Sad but true.

[reboog711]

Free is not a business model and people who think otherwise deserve to have their companies go out of business. Money has to be made somewhere.

That said, free **can** be part of a business model.

Take a look at Google, as one example. Lots of services they offer are free to me, but the company still makes money..

Or how about the TV shows I watch "over the air" with my bunny ear TV antenna. They are advertising sponsored (just like most of Google's services).

Or how about many software products that offer trial editions? Or how about companies behind MySQL, or RedHat? Or Adobe with the Flash Player?

All are using free as part of their business model, but not the only piece.

[baconstang]

That's it! We'll just put short ads between verses, kinda like TV.

[nodash]

I think that the main point is miss with copyrighted material? Will copyright owners be able to do this without a gunvernment granted monopoly? The answer is No. That's the issue with copyright: It is a government granted monopoly. Take it away and instead of wasting money prosecuting people they will have to work hard to make money by innovating and being first to market. you know being good at their business.

I used to believe that copyright was private property but then I read the book titled: Against intellectual monopoly by economists Michelle boldrin and david levine. You can read the book for free at
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm

it is a very insteresting read and destroy the argument that copyright is necessary for innovation to happen.

Also the Mises institue has done great advances in this subject,

[MrJosh]

bit lopsided of an article here. by the way, your facts are off a bit.

[Talyx]

I love the whole "the culture has changed" thing.

A load of bull**** if I've ever heard it. Do you think people are subscribing to 10-100Mbps home internet connections so that they can watch 17 different streams of MSNBC at the same time?

The "culture" of the young generation (under 30) is the matra of, "if it's possible to copy it, it's fair game". I don't think I've met one young person who's told me "downloading MP3s is bad, and I would never do it". More remarkable is the number of parents that figure it's just fine for their kids to be doing exactly that. Even to the point of asking their kids to download stuff for them -- say, a song they that they can't find on the shelf at their local record store.

Personally, I hate rights managed content.

I PAY for my content, whether they are games or TV shows, and those paid copies are far less friendly than pirated content. For example: I have to use what some might consider "piracy" tools to get a season of Bones onto my Archos; I have to download "cracks" to stop my freakin' DVD drive from spinning and driving me nuts on practically any game I'm playing. I just bought Transporter 3 on blue-ray, and yes, it looks great on my TV. But guess what, if I want to play it on a protable player, I'm better off downloading a DIVX copy, than trying to use the "free" totally unfriendly activationware SD digital copy.

Buy a DVD and you have a zillion annoying trailers and FBI warnings to sit or forward through. Is an FBI warning on EVERY disc of a a 70 disc gift set necessary? Burn a copy or download it, and you get right to the good stuff.

My tip to the manufacturers: stop penalizing those of us who actually buy content.

[screamapillar]

Here here!!

I get to a point of rage where I am close to standing and shouting (albeit pointlessly) at the TV set everytime another anti-piracy add is forced down my throat on a dvd I purchased. I'm like, um, dude, I paid for this... didn't you get the memo? It was attached to that overinflated price tag I forked out for...

[gertruded]

This fascist nightmere of corporate greed must be stopped. If we don't get the corporations under control we are lost. The corporate greed that is behind all this criminalization of "fair use" must be contained before our country is destroyed.

How can taking from gangsters be criminal?

[screamapillar]

I couldn't agree more, gertruded. We have all these people talking about piracy as 'theft' (which it isn't, it is an infringement) and a "crime" (which is isn't) and defending these mega corporations in the name of the artist - who we all know is not the one making the muchos cash from the sales or "lost sales" (what a joke).

Music, film - they are art. Made for the people. Keep them from the people and the people will retaliate. Fair use needs to be re-examined, as does the life span of copyright and patents. It is exploitation.

[unknown unknown]

The vast majority of additions to the copyright law for at least the last century have been bought by lobbyist and enacted by a corrupt congress. Copyright law becoming so one sided it's a bad joke. It's no wonder so many people do not respect it.

They can buy all the legislation they want, it's not going to end piracy.


As newspapers, they've tried the pay wall before and it didn't work.

[Mak1954]

The whole misunderstanding is in essence of copyright laws. They need to be shanged, because they are based on the 19th century idea of "original art", which does not work even in 20th century after Andy Warhol made a "portrait" of Campbell soup. The end of last century and these decades are years of multioriginals, and the laws have to understand the essence of media.
The sellers of media stuff use new media to sell the same product two or three times in different media. They exploit this technical advantage to earn extra money, but they do not allow others to use the same technical advantage for the same private gain. This is in the core of present copyright laws, and the lawmakers -- until they don't create appropriate laws -- shouldn't support only one side, that makes money, and doesn't bother to improve their business model, spread on time on other uncovered "hungry" markets, invest money in R&D to shield their property and improve the security. So, their "losses" are virtual, because they can not claim the damage in the business they are not controlling. They are losing because themselves too are to lazy to adapt to a new sales models and face the reality.

[dragontsd]

Technology has advanced to this level, the logistical difficulties that once allowed record companies and motion picture companies to overcharge for their product are now no longer in existance. Try legislating away technology and see where it gets you.

I know you want all the money, we all want all the money...the simple fact of the matter is that you are no longer deserving of it. you've lost your edge. We dont want people who are in it for the money, we want people who are in it for the art. If all you care about is money then maybe we dont really want you around.

People will do what they do, the last time the judicial branch tried to ignore that basic rule and prohibit alcohol it gave rise to the most widespread and prolific organized crime surge in recorded history. Recategorizing the whole filesharing world as criminals is not going to win you anything...least of all more money.

lets recap: what everyone knows is right, even though they wont admit it.

If you cant make money performing live, you are not necessary in the recording industry. Think of record sales as a bonus. So sorry that crap bands will no longer be able to put out one good song and 12 crappy ones and call it a record...then charge record price....lol...yeah we need that around.

If you cannot be satisfied with the money you make CURRENTLY with your box office sales and your DVD sales, you are not necessary in the film industry. No more infinite rights to your creations...eventually your creation becomes the property of the culture...why should you be paid for that? because you created it? I'm an engineer, if i invent something I own it for 17 years...after that it's free game. and those are things that directly affect us...things that really matter, things that will save lives, cure diseases, solve problems...not ENTERTAINMENT.

Real, honest-to-god talent will be recognized, it will be rewarded by society (your customers) accordingly, and you honestly have no right to question that reward. Why should you? because the publishing company says you can?

[fredmenace]

As a few others (but not enough) have pointed out, the copyright compact is broken.

Copyright is supposed to exist solely to benefit the public by making creative works more widely available. The limited (in time and scope) exclusivity that is granted to copyright holders is meant as an incentive to publish so that more people may enjoy use of the works (same with patents: the patent filing is supposed to be instructions for others to easily implement the new innovation so that all of society can benefit by the advance).

If the "founding fathers" had felt that publication were sufficiently likely without this incentive, they probably would have excluded it from the Constitution, as many of them considered the very notion of intellectual "property" to be odious.

(Today I think that publication of creative works, as well as technical innovation in the case of patents, is so likely that there is no real need for copyright as an incentive to either publish or invent. While I'm not in favor of abolishing patents or copyrights entirely, I do feel firmly that copyright as it currently exists is more destructive to creativity than it is supportive, and is clearly worse than no copyright at all.)

It was the big businesses (who largely control congress) that, since the 1970s, broke the compact first by pushing for massive extensions of copyright duration, seeking to limit or eliminate fair use, greatly increase penalties for infringement, and to add taxes on blank media while still trying to fight copying even when using those same taxed media. So don't get angry at the rest of the population for fighting to get their own rights back. Congress doesn't listen to us any more, so we're forced (even morally compelled) to use civil disobedience.

But yes, the copyright war is over. The pro-copyright advocates just don't know that they've lost yet. What it comes down to is that enforcing copyright in the digital age requires two things that people won't put up with forever:

1) Intrusive surveillance that people won't tolerate on privacy grounds. Without such surveillance, the copyright "police" would never be aware of 99% of infringement. (So far, the RIAA has had to rely almost exclusively on illegal, unlicensed investigators in order to gather any evidence at all for their lawsuits.)
2) Massive damage awards that are grossly out of proportion to any conceivable damage done (particularly when in most cases of infringement there is arguably no damage at all). Without such ridiculously high penalties, investigating and prosecuting non-commercial copyright cases would almost never be worth the money. (Gee, maybe they could get back to their traditional business - overcharging for crappy products while underpaying, even cheating, their suppliers, aka musicians and artists.)

In the case of music, I think the entire industry is dead, as well it should be. Musicians no longer need labels to record, finance, distribute or even promote their music. (Making movies remains such a difficult and expensive endeavor that production studios and investors remain a necessary, key part of that business.)

[screamapillar]

A very constructive post fredmenace.

And yet those same companies exploit to the nth degree any of the music and film that has fallen into 'public domain'. I don't see any of them sending money back to mozart's family when they use his music...

[tdcogre]

Everyone reading this article should note the following information from CNET's website:


"CNET, a property of CBS Interactive, is where people go to discover the latest in tech and consumer electronics."

or see this url

<http://www.cbs.com/sales/>

The slant of this and other articles on the subject on CNET is easy to see. These folks know what side thier bread is buttered on.

[zachbikus]

Let me tell you all when I stop buying full CD albums...

When I was 14 I heard the song "Tubthumping" by Chumbawamba on the radio and really liked it. So I strolled down to Sam Goody (RIP) and plunked down damn near $20 for that CD. As soon as I got home I popped it in my CD player and listened through it a couple times only to discover a horrifying secret: Besides the first song, every other track on that album was absolutely terrible. I had just spent hard-earned paperboy money on something that was 95% garbage. And even the title song gets boring after a while.

So while I am more than happy to pay for individual songs from artists I really like, there is no way I will ever be forced into paying full price for something that is loaded with filler.

[SeizeCTRL]

Maybe if the recording industry would stop releasing a bunch of worthless garbage. Whatever happened to bands with actual talent? Remember back when MTV actually played videos and they actually played great stuff. If you were into metal, you had Headbangers Ball, if you were into alternatve / punk, you had IRS's A Cutting Edge / 120 Minutes / Alternative Nation. But now, if you are lucky enough to find MTV playing videos, it's Beyonce, Britney Spears, and a whole slew of hip hop BS that is pure rubbish. Any idiot with a computer and a drum machine can cut and paste loops and make music. I'm not dissing programs like Reason, but seriously, there's a major lack of talented artists hitting the airwaves. Thank god for indie artists that you can find hiding out on the internet. It's these unknown bands that will never go mainstream that are the only real hope that the music industry is not dead. How many people have heard of Tiger Lou? Wonderful band. The Loyal is an incredible song, but it in the 3 or 4 years since it's been out, I doubt it's ever made it's way on to US airwaves. In that time, we have been bombarded by crap after crap after crap band.

The sad thing is... American Idol showcases the pure inexplicable problem with the music industry and the population eats it up like brain dead sheep, while bands with real talent struggle to be heard. If it wasn't for piracy and sites like MySpace, Last.fm and so on, many of these bands would never reach an audience any further than the local venues they play.

[shootfirst]

All consumer piracy is pointing at is that they do not like what the industry is selling, and they do not like having antipiracy measures imposed on them. When you spend a sizeable chunk of money on a song, yes even a dollar is sizeable, you want to be able to do with it as you want. However the discs you buy are too expensive and DRM music sucks as you are limited to how you can use it as everyone and their dog has their own version. Pirated music you get all of this and the same with films and other media. When the consumer doesn't like your methodology you should change it instead of strongarming them and going after people for sums of money they cannot possibly pay. Face it media producers we the consumer are tired of playing by your games and we demand better service. Either provide it or go where your sun don't shine. Oh and to those poor people fired in the media business, don't complain to us, go get your money from the stars that were payed crazy sums of money.