No surprise here, frankly, There should be a law signed that prevents Movie studios from raping the customer to see a movie, average cost for a family of 4 is $30 + Food....INSANE!! What about that? The stars make TONS of money....its always the AVG joe that has to pay!!
I've only been to the movie theaters ONCE! in my whole life i swear to god.
My dad brought me and my two sisters to see 101 dalmations...it costs a little over $50...my dad made us all swear not to tell our mom how much it cost. Never been to the theaters since then.
In my house...a movie isn't OUT until its on dvd in the stores...
Remember...file sharing is legal in Canada...i say we all defect :P
To stop going to movies. I know, I know... You shouldn't have to. But that's capitalism.
I drastically cut back the number of movies I paid to see years ago, and haven't seen a single one in almost 3 full years. Most of them completely suck anyway.
The sad part is that there is no shortage of idiots who will happily cough up $7.50 (or is it more now?) to get a ticket for that crap.
I mean, when people can stay home to watch tv or rent DVDs, why would they want to spend over $15 PER PERSON to watch crappy movies? Instead of spending $$ to crack down "pirates", movie studios should use the money to make better movies :)
No surprise here, frankly, There should be a law signed that prevents Movie studios from raping the customer to see a movie, average cost for a family of 4 is $30 + Food....INSANE!! What about that? The stars make TONS of money....its always the AVG joe that has to pay!!
I've only been to the movie theaters ONCE! in my whole life i swear to god.
My dad brought me and my two sisters to see 101 dalmations...it costs a little over $50...my dad made us all swear not to tell our mom how much it cost. Never been to the theaters since then.
In my house...a movie isn't OUT until its on dvd in the stores...
Remember...file sharing is legal in Canada...i say we all defect :P
To stop going to movies. I know, I know... You shouldn't have to. But that's capitalism.
I drastically cut back the number of movies I paid to see years ago, and haven't seen a single one in almost 3 full years. Most of them completely suck anyway.
The sad part is that there is no shortage of idiots who will happily cough up $7.50 (or is it more now?) to get a ticket for that crap.
I mean, when people can stay home to watch tv or rent DVDs, why would they want to spend over $15 PER PERSON to watch crappy movies? Instead of spending $$ to crack down "pirates", movie studios should use the money to make better movies :)
What if a file sharer has less than a whole movie (but the movie can still be downloaded in parts from several places?) In fact it is possible that two people have no part of the movie, but togrther have the whole movie (xor the file with a random string of bits. The result is also a random string of bits. Each person holds one random string of bits, that in fact contains absolutely no information about the contents of the file. xor the two parts and you got the whole file. This is how 0+0 can be 1). Can the law cope with this situation?
But if I had to speculate -- well, willful, coordinated activities designed to bypass this new law perhaps could be punished as conspiracy. A lot depends on whether you know what's happening on your computer at that time or not.
And keep in mind, even if you are innocent of wrondgoing, you may end up giving your life's savings to an attorney to defend you in court.
What if a file sharer has less than a whole movie (but the movie can still be downloaded in parts from several places?) In fact it is possible that two people have no part of the movie, but togrther have the whole movie (xor the file with a random string of bits. The result is also a random string of bits. Each person holds one random string of bits, that in fact contains absolutely no information about the contents of the file. xor the two parts and you got the whole file. This is how 0+0 can be 1). Can the law cope with this situation?
But if I had to speculate -- well, willful, coordinated activities designed to bypass this new law perhaps could be punished as conspiracy. A lot depends on whether you know what's happening on your computer at that time or not.
And keep in mind, even if you are innocent of wrondgoing, you may end up giving your life's savings to an attorney to defend you in court.
I'm confused about this. Your article seems to imply that this law pertains to "unreleased movies, music, and software." Is that the case? If so, then it would seem to me to be targeting internal "leaks" of new works.
Cnet, can you clarify what this law really means? Because I would assume that if I am the copyright holder, and I release one of my songs to a P2P network, no laws have been violated. Correct?
I quoted from and linked to the text of the bill in the article. But here's a longer excerpt:
`(1) IN GENERAL- Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed... by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
`(3) DEFINITION- In this subsection, the term `work being prepared for commercial distribution' means--
`(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution--
`(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and
`(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or
`(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture--
`(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and
`(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.'.
SEC. 103. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A WORK BEING PREPARED FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION
`(1) IN GENERAL- Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed--
`(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
`(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
`(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
I'm confused about this. Your article seems to imply that this law pertains to "unreleased movies, music, and software." Is that the case? If so, then it would seem to me to be targeting internal "leaks" of new works.
Cnet, can you clarify what this law really means? Because I would assume that if I am the copyright holder, and I release one of my songs to a P2P network, no laws have been violated. Correct?
I quoted from and linked to the text of the bill in the article. But here's a longer excerpt:
`(1) IN GENERAL- Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed... by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
`(3) DEFINITION- In this subsection, the term `work being prepared for commercial distribution' means--
`(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution--
`(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and
`(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or
`(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture--
`(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and
`(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.'.
SEC. 103. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A WORK BEING PREPARED FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION
`(1) IN GENERAL- Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed--
`(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
`(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
`(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
Almost. Capitalism means competing in the marketplace without running to the government for help (except to punish fraud artists, thieves, trespassers, etc.).
What's going on here isn't free-market capitalism with limited government involvment. It involves the government far more than that -- more like a modern-day successor to mercantilism.
Almost. Capitalism means competing in the marketplace without running to the government for help (except to punish fraud artists, thieves, trespassers, etc.).
What's going on here isn't free-market capitalism with limited government involvment. It involves the government far more than that -- more like a modern-day successor to mercantilism.
I don't think the government is stupid, but I don't thinks it's smart either. Polotitians don't know everything about everything. They do what ever they are told to do. Who has the power? People with the loudest voices. And guess who can afford the biggest bull horn. Bush or his cabinet never spent anytime researching the effect of this law. They sign it in and the courts throw it out. Unfortunatly many citizens will suffer in the mean time.
Look at two laws that are stupid. Patriot Act and the DMCA. I'm not going to argue that the concept for both was bad just the implamentation. It is a fine gray line between what is constitutional and what they can change. We all have the power to make the change, but only if enough of us stand together (yeah I know 'how 60's of me). If you don't like the way theaters charge don't go. If you don't like the way music is sold don't buy it. It's not easy and it won't be one in a day, but some point the market will crash or change will happen.
I don't think the government is stupid, but I don't thinks it's smart either. Polotitians don't know everything about everything. They do what ever they are told to do. Who has the power? People with the loudest voices. And guess who can afford the biggest bull horn. Bush or his cabinet never spent anytime researching the effect of this law. They sign it in and the courts throw it out. Unfortunatly many citizens will suffer in the mean time.
Look at two laws that are stupid. Patriot Act and the DMCA. I'm not going to argue that the concept for both was bad just the implamentation. It is a fine gray line between what is constitutional and what they can change. We all have the power to make the change, but only if enough of us stand together (yeah I know 'how 60's of me). If you don't like the way theaters charge don't go. If you don't like the way music is sold don't buy it. It's not easy and it won't be one in a day, but some point the market will crash or change will happen.
Darn it, this new law is going to cause the loss of thousands of American video pirate jobs. These jobs will now be outsourced to China, Russia, and other developing countries. Something MUST be done to bring these jobs back here. Per the MPAA's website:
"Russia is now one of the worlds largest producers and distributors of illegal optical media material. Local DVD plants have an annual production capacity of over 20 million DVDs (over 10 times the level of legitimate local demand). The Russian market has now become so saturated with pirate DVDs that the pirates have resorted to selling them on the streets by the kilogram.
China struggles with chronic piracy, which is estimated to comprise 91% of its total home entertainment market. Some of the factors that fuel the piracy epidemic include the lack of deterrence in the system; the uncoordinated enforcement activities throughout China; the lack of transparency; and the continued local protectionism."
Darn it, this new law is going to cause the loss of thousands of American video pirate jobs. These jobs will now be outsourced to China, Russia, and other developing countries. Something MUST be done to bring these jobs back here. Per the MPAA's website:
"Russia is now one of the worlds largest producers and distributors of illegal optical media material. Local DVD plants have an annual production capacity of over 20 million DVDs (over 10 times the level of legitimate local demand). The Russian market has now become so saturated with pirate DVDs that the pirates have resorted to selling them on the streets by the kilogram.
China struggles with chronic piracy, which is estimated to comprise 91% of its total home entertainment market. Some of the factors that fuel the piracy epidemic include the lack of deterrence in the system; the uncoordinated enforcement activities throughout China; the lack of transparency; and the continued local protectionism."
Come on people. Get real. I'm a pirate. By the industry's current view, I've been a pirate for about 25 years... since I first started taping songs off the radio by playing my clock radio and taping over the air with my (mono!) cassette recorder's condensor mic. I think collecting audio and video I'm exposed to is a right, not a crime. And I'm the first to say that most online swapping is not lost revenue... But posting and swapping of content which has not even been released yet... what justification can you make for this? Nobody, not even the industry insiders, have come by this material with the right to share it by any legal means. And no argument can be made that it doesn't hurt the industry. Likewise for taping movies in the theatre (a closed, private airing of content). As for the recording and sharing of material broadcast on TV... I can't see any argument for something which was broadcast publicly and for free being considered "stolen". And hopefully this bill will not be construed as making that a crime. I'd hate to go to jail for taping a TV show for my mom while she was sick! In all I think this law has a lot of benefit for the public, and very little infringement on our rights. Don't overlook that this same law validates the technology to permit the censoring of content by individuals in their own home... which the industry also wanted outlawed.
Come on people. Get real. I'm a pirate. By the industry's current view, I've been a pirate for about 25 years... since I first started taping songs off the radio by playing my clock radio and taping over the air with my (mono!) cassette recorder's condensor mic. I think collecting audio and video I'm exposed to is a right, not a crime. And I'm the first to say that most online swapping is not lost revenue... But posting and swapping of content which has not even been released yet... what justification can you make for this? Nobody, not even the industry insiders, have come by this material with the right to share it by any legal means. And no argument can be made that it doesn't hurt the industry. Likewise for taping movies in the theatre (a closed, private airing of content). As for the recording and sharing of material broadcast on TV... I can't see any argument for something which was broadcast publicly and for free being considered "stolen". And hopefully this bill will not be construed as making that a crime. I'd hate to go to jail for taping a TV show for my mom while she was sick! In all I think this law has a lot of benefit for the public, and very little infringement on our rights. Don't overlook that this same law validates the technology to permit the censoring of content by individuals in their own home... which the industry also wanted outlawed.
...it only affects pre-release piracy; and that is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, theft and has the potential to rob the industry of even legit profit. The fact that they're greedy bastards who overcharge for everything is a seperate issue altogether.
Pre-release in the case of movies means DVD release. If you distribute a movie that is in the theaters but not on DVD in the US. You could be found guilty.
...it only affects pre-release piracy; and that is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, theft and has the potential to rob the industry of even legit profit. The fact that they're greedy bastards who overcharge for everything is a seperate issue altogether.
I think they chose the wrong name for this law. "Family Entertainment and Copyright Act" makes the law seem friendly and positive, when it is completely the opposite. Maybe it should've been named "Copyright Infringement People Imprisonment Act".
It seems they've learned nothing. How many lawsuits or how many courtrooms before they realize that people will keep on swapping? I don't do file sharing myself, but those who do do it, will probably keep at it.
. . .with other sections that protect the rights to make and use tools that allow a viewer to skip potentially offensive content in films. The entirity of the act is called "Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005", but it is divided into two sections. The relevant section, in this case, is called "Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005" or "ART Act". The other section is called the "Family Movie Act of 2005" which covers the skipping offensive scenes part.
It does make you wonder if these two bills were specifically lumped together under an innocent-sounding title for exactly that reason, however. I don't see the point, however, as we see right through it. But alas, it doesn't really matter; this law overblows the issue, as most copyright penalities do, but making it a crime to pirate prerelease stuff isn't really a big deal. I just wish the penalties for this kind of stuff were less exaggerated.
I think they chose the wrong name for this law. "Family Entertainment and Copyright Act" makes the law seem friendly and positive, when it is completely the opposite. Maybe it should've been named "Copyright Infringement People Imprisonment Act".
It seems they've learned nothing. How many lawsuits or how many courtrooms before they realize that people will keep on swapping? I don't do file sharing myself, but those who do do it, will probably keep at it.
. . .with other sections that protect the rights to make and use tools that allow a viewer to skip potentially offensive content in films. The entirity of the act is called "Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005", but it is divided into two sections. The relevant section, in this case, is called "Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005" or "ART Act". The other section is called the "Family Movie Act of 2005" which covers the skipping offensive scenes part.
It does make you wonder if these two bills were specifically lumped together under an innocent-sounding title for exactly that reason, however. I don't see the point, however, as we see right through it. But alas, it doesn't really matter; this law overblows the issue, as most copyright penalities do, but making it a crime to pirate prerelease stuff isn't really a big deal. I just wish the penalties for this kind of stuff were less exaggerated.
It seems a requisite of post-communist Western government to intimidate it's people by passing laws that would make it's citizens generally fearful that they are criminal, and to pass those laws that will benefit only the very wealthy. Intellectual property (no matter how trivial) is now a commodity, and sharing it as you were taught to share in kindergarten, indeed as libraries have been sharing since the ancient Greeks, is now theft. If these same laws were represented two hundred years ago it would have cost a dollar to read the Bill of Rights and you wouldn't dare share them with your neighbor.
It seems a requisite of post-communist Western government to intimidate it's people by passing laws that would make it's citizens generally fearful that they are criminal, and to pass those laws that will benefit only the very wealthy. Intellectual property (no matter how trivial) is now a commodity, and sharing it as you were taught to share in kindergarten, indeed as libraries have been sharing since the ancient Greeks, is now theft. If these same laws were represented two hundred years ago it would have cost a dollar to read the Bill of Rights and you wouldn't dare share them with your neighbor.
..because to get a hold of pre-release items, it must have been stolen.. I read that if we just cut down on piracy of music & videos we can cut our trade deficit in half.
Matthew <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.mlearningworld.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.mlearningworld.com</a>
..because to get a hold of pre-release items, it must have been stolen.. I read that if we just cut down on piracy of music & videos we can cut our trade deficit in half.
Matthew <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.mlearningworld.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.mlearningworld.com</a>
Like the others who responded, this law isn't confusing or unwanted as the writer of your story seems to imply. Prerelease piracy is theft, no confusion there at all. And finally, what a wonderful thing that I can actually hope to someday rent or purchase a DVD and watch it with my family, having gratuitous profanity, nudity, and violence filtered out. I've given up renting or seeing new movies the past 5 years, instead waiting for them to come on network tv, so I can watch them with my family. It seems to me nobody's business what I do in the privacy of my own home, I don't see why anyone would be against a law that permits me to see a filtered version of movies, like the writer of your story seems to support.
Manage updates with the Download App
My dad brought me and my two sisters to see 101 dalmations...it costs a little over $50...my dad made us all swear not to tell our mom how much it cost. Never been to the theaters since then.
In my house...a movie isn't OUT until its on dvd in the stores...
Remember...file sharing is legal in Canada...i say we all defect :P
I drastically cut back the number of movies I paid to see years ago, and haven't seen a single one in almost 3 full years. Most of them completely suck anyway.
The sad part is that there is no shortage of idiots who will happily cough up $7.50 (or is it more now?) to get a ticket for that crap.
My dad brought me and my two sisters to see 101 dalmations...it costs a little over $50...my dad made us all swear not to tell our mom how much it cost. Never been to the theaters since then.
In my house...a movie isn't OUT until its on dvd in the stores...
Remember...file sharing is legal in Canada...i say we all defect :P
I drastically cut back the number of movies I paid to see years ago, and haven't seen a single one in almost 3 full years. Most of them completely suck anyway.
The sad part is that there is no shortage of idiots who will happily cough up $7.50 (or is it more now?) to get a ticket for that crap.
But if I had to speculate -- well, willful, coordinated activities designed to bypass this new law perhaps could be punished as conspiracy. A lot depends on whether you know what's happening on your computer at that time or not.
And keep in mind, even if you are innocent of wrondgoing, you may end up giving your life's savings to an attorney to defend you in court.
But if I had to speculate -- well, willful, coordinated activities designed to bypass this new law perhaps could be punished as conspiracy. A lot depends on whether you know what's happening on your computer at that time or not.
And keep in mind, even if you are innocent of wrondgoing, you may end up giving your life's savings to an attorney to defend you in court.
Cnet, can you clarify what this law really means? Because I would assume that if I am the copyright holder, and I release one of my songs to a P2P network, no laws have been violated. Correct?
`(1) IN GENERAL- Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed... by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
`(3) DEFINITION- In this subsection, the term `work being prepared for commercial distribution' means--
`(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution--
`(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and
`(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or
`(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture--
`(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and
`(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.'.
SEC. 103. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A WORK BEING PREPARED FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION
`(1) IN GENERAL- Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed--
`(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
`(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
`(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
Cnet, can you clarify what this law really means? Because I would assume that if I am the copyright holder, and I release one of my songs to a P2P network, no laws have been violated. Correct?
`(1) IN GENERAL- Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed... by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
`(3) DEFINITION- In this subsection, the term `work being prepared for commercial distribution' means--
`(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution--
`(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and
`(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or
`(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture--
`(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and
`(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.'.
SEC. 103. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A WORK BEING PREPARED FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION
`(1) IN GENERAL- Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed--
`(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
`(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
`(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
What's going on here isn't free-market capitalism with limited government involvment. It involves the government far more than that -- more like a modern-day successor to mercantilism.
What's going on here isn't free-market capitalism with limited government involvment. It involves the government far more than that -- more like a modern-day successor to mercantilism.
I don't think the government is stupid, but I don't thinks it's smart either. Polotitians don't know everything about everything. They do what ever they are told to do. Who has the power? People with the loudest voices. And guess who can afford the biggest bull horn. Bush or his cabinet never spent anytime researching the effect of this law. They sign it in and the courts throw it out. Unfortunatly many citizens will suffer in the mean time.
Look at two laws that are stupid. Patriot Act and the DMCA. I'm not going to argue that the concept for both was bad just the implamentation. It is a fine gray line between what is constitutional and what they can change. We all have the power to make the change, but only if enough of us stand together (yeah I know 'how 60's of me). If you don't like the way theaters charge don't go. If you don't like the way music is sold don't buy it. It's not easy and it won't be one in a day, but some point the market will crash or change will happen.
I don't think the government is stupid, but I don't thinks it's smart either. Polotitians don't know everything about everything. They do what ever they are told to do. Who has the power? People with the loudest voices. And guess who can afford the biggest bull horn. Bush or his cabinet never spent anytime researching the effect of this law. They sign it in and the courts throw it out. Unfortunatly many citizens will suffer in the mean time.
Look at two laws that are stupid. Patriot Act and the DMCA. I'm not going to argue that the concept for both was bad just the implamentation. It is a fine gray line between what is constitutional and what they can change. We all have the power to make the change, but only if enough of us stand together (yeah I know 'how 60's of me). If you don't like the way theaters charge don't go. If you don't like the way music is sold don't buy it. It's not easy and it won't be one in a day, but some point the market will crash or change will happen.
"Russia is now one of the worlds largest producers and distributors of illegal optical media material. Local DVD plants have an annual production capacity of over 20 million DVDs (over 10 times the level of legitimate local demand). The Russian market has now become so saturated with pirate DVDs that the pirates have resorted to selling them on the streets by the kilogram.
China struggles with chronic piracy, which is estimated to comprise 91% of its total home entertainment market. Some of the factors that fuel the piracy epidemic include the lack of deterrence in the system; the uncoordinated
enforcement activities throughout China; the lack of transparency; and the continued local protectionism."
Where's Jack Valente when you really need him?
"Russia is now one of the worlds largest producers and distributors of illegal optical media material. Local DVD plants have an annual production capacity of over 20 million DVDs (over 10 times the level of legitimate local demand). The Russian market has now become so saturated with pirate DVDs that the pirates have resorted to selling them on the streets by the kilogram.
China struggles with chronic piracy, which is estimated to comprise 91% of its total home entertainment market. Some of the factors that fuel the piracy epidemic include the lack of deterrence in the system; the uncoordinated
enforcement activities throughout China; the lack of transparency; and the continued local protectionism."
Where's Jack Valente when you really need him?
I'm a pirate. By the industry's current view, I've been a pirate for about 25 years... since I first started taping songs off the radio by playing my clock radio and taping over the air with my (mono!) cassette recorder's condensor mic.
I think collecting audio and video I'm exposed to is a right, not a crime. And I'm the first to say that most online swapping is not lost revenue...
But posting and swapping of content which has not even been released yet... what justification can you make for this? Nobody, not even the industry insiders, have come by this material with the right to share it by any legal means. And no argument can be made that it doesn't hurt the industry. Likewise for taping movies in the theatre (a closed, private airing of content).
As for the recording and sharing of material broadcast on TV... I can't see any argument for something which was broadcast publicly and for free being considered "stolen". And hopefully this bill will not be construed as making that a crime. I'd hate to go to jail for taping a TV show for my mom while she was sick!
In all I think this law has a lot of benefit for the public, and very little infringement on our rights. Don't overlook that this same law validates the technology to permit the censoring of content by individuals in their own home... which the industry also wanted outlawed.
I'm a pirate. By the industry's current view, I've been a pirate for about 25 years... since I first started taping songs off the radio by playing my clock radio and taping over the air with my (mono!) cassette recorder's condensor mic.
I think collecting audio and video I'm exposed to is a right, not a crime. And I'm the first to say that most online swapping is not lost revenue...
But posting and swapping of content which has not even been released yet... what justification can you make for this? Nobody, not even the industry insiders, have come by this material with the right to share it by any legal means. And no argument can be made that it doesn't hurt the industry. Likewise for taping movies in the theatre (a closed, private airing of content).
As for the recording and sharing of material broadcast on TV... I can't see any argument for something which was broadcast publicly and for free being considered "stolen". And hopefully this bill will not be construed as making that a crime. I'd hate to go to jail for taping a TV show for my mom while she was sick!
In all I think this law has a lot of benefit for the public, and very little infringement on our rights. Don't overlook that this same law validates the technology to permit the censoring of content by individuals in their own home... which the industry also wanted outlawed.
It seems they've learned nothing. How many lawsuits or how many courtrooms before they realize that people will keep on swapping? I don't do file sharing myself, but those who do do it, will probably keep at it.
It does make you wonder if these two bills were specifically lumped together under an innocent-sounding title for exactly that reason, however. I don't see the point, however, as we see right through it. But alas, it doesn't really matter; this law overblows the issue, as most copyright penalities do, but making it a crime to pirate prerelease stuff isn't really a big deal. I just wish the penalties for this kind of stuff were less exaggerated.
It seems they've learned nothing. How many lawsuits or how many courtrooms before they realize that people will keep on swapping? I don't do file sharing myself, but those who do do it, will probably keep at it.
It does make you wonder if these two bills were specifically lumped together under an innocent-sounding title for exactly that reason, however. I don't see the point, however, as we see right through it. But alas, it doesn't really matter; this law overblows the issue, as most copyright penalities do, but making it a crime to pirate prerelease stuff isn't really a big deal. I just wish the penalties for this kind of stuff were less exaggerated.
Matthew
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.mlearningworld.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.mlearningworld.com</a>
So, when someone says: Thanks to all of you who voted for Bush!" I can stand back and say "Hey, I didn't vote for him!" = D
But seriously... I wanna know how much he was paid to sign it. Money-greedy moron.
That's it.... I'M MOVIN TO CANADA!
Matthew
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.mlearningworld.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.mlearningworld.com</a>
So, when someone says: Thanks to all of you who voted for Bush!" I can stand back and say "Hey, I didn't vote for him!" = D
But seriously... I wanna know how much he was paid to sign it. Money-greedy moron.
That's it.... I'M MOVIN TO CANADA!