He really should go after them. Once they see the similarities, they'll settle, and he'll get money.
Major Copyright Judgement
- Thread starter lionking
- Start date
He really should go after them. Once they see the similarities, they'll settle, and he'll get money.
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 8,957
Did you read the article? If he went after them, they'd keep him in court for as long as possible, racking up huge bills and spending more pursuing the case than he would get from a judgement. This would cost Warner Brothers more too, of course, but it would also scare off the next plagiarised copyright holder with a genuine grievance.
Okay, there's two sides to this.
The first is that I don't really like piracy. At all. It's been killing the video game industry for years, and has almost entirely resulted in the death of large-scale PC only video games that are NOT MMORPGs.
The flip side is ISPs should not look at customers data. Period. I'd prefer it if they deleted that instantly. They have a huge position of power, and to demand that they abuse it is crazy.
So yeah. Basically, the judgment is right, but pirates should still be kicked in the balls.
The first is that I don't really like piracy. At all. It's been killing the video game industry for years, and has almost entirely resulted in the death of large-scale PC only video games that are NOT MMORPGs.
The flip side is ISPs should not look at customers data. Period. I'd prefer it if they deleted that instantly. They have a huge position of power, and to demand that they abuse it is crazy.
So yeah. Basically, the judgment is right, but pirates should still be kicked in the balls.
I read the article. I still think Warner Bros. would likely settle a legitimate claim.
Cynic
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,329
Agreed. In addition, while the analogy isn't perfect, suing Verizon because one of their users did something illegal with their connection is like suing the local power company because your neighbor used a corded power saw (drawing their power) to rip down your fence. It's sad that the burden should be placed on the copyright holder and that the task of finding them is so monumental. But that's fair. The ISP should be required to report illegal activity they know about, but they should not, IMO, be required to actively seek it out.
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 8,957
Psi Baba
Homo Skepticalis
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2001
- Messages
- 4,027
I agree with the article's analogy. Another one would be that you can't sue the telephone company for someone making obscene phone calls or bomb scares. You can't sue the postal service because people are shipping contraband. I don't think communications, utilities, and transport services should be held responsible for or required to police how their services are used.
Also, someone pointed out that not all torrents are illegal. Some indie bands distribute their paid-for downloads via torrents. You purchase the product, download a torrent file, and you download the package using your favorite bittorrent program. Once a few seeds have been established, the demand on the distributor's bandwidth is reduced. I suppose it might be easy enough to check into the owner of the tracker to find out that it's a legitimate tracker used only by the copyright holder, but would law-abiding music consumers be lumped in with everyone who is downloading illegal torrents? I don't know.
Also, someone pointed out that not all torrents are illegal. Some indie bands distribute their paid-for downloads via torrents. You purchase the product, download a torrent file, and you download the package using your favorite bittorrent program. Once a few seeds have been established, the demand on the distributor's bandwidth is reduced. I suppose it might be easy enough to check into the owner of the tracker to find out that it's a legitimate tracker used only by the copyright holder, but would law-abiding music consumers be lumped in with everyone who is downloading illegal torrents? I don't know.
Randi's solicitors said otherwise.
You mean "lawyers". This is the States.
Also, Randi never actually claimed to have talked to lawyers about it. He used the term "those I consulted".
I can certainly understand his distaste for trudging through the legal process; it just ticks me off when people have valid copyright claims and don't pursue them.
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,334
This is true, however a Xerox machines didn't have a feature where you could open a panel and see a list of thousands of books, and push a button and crank one off.
I don't say it's the service provider's fault, but "Hey, here's a stream that downloads our stuff, please shut it down" should be something that can be done, with proper legislation. Save off a little package of proof, like a copy of the data and the torrent that organizes it, with legal proof it is copyrighted material.
The laws have to be careful, though. Some guy on YouTube ranting against Islam had his videos yanked (50-some) by a Muslim organization claiming copyright. He told Youtube, "Hey, I recorded these, they're mine!" YouTube responded, "Fine. According to law, you can get them reinstated. But the law says you must give your name and address so the other party can know."
Needless to say, this is an issue.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
What about what they tried to do to the Marx Brothers?
http://www.chillingeffects.org/resource.cgi?ResourceID=31
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 8,957
Fair point, but I think we can safely assume Randi consulted authorities on the matter.
Uh, you really have no idea of what is in a packet, and how peer to peer works.
Lets just say your idea is so technically impossible that it's akin to suggesting that cars automatically come to a complete halt when they're transporting stolen goods, but at all other times operate normally and never check what is in your car. Or Xerox machines automatically cease to operate when they're copying copyrighted material outside of the fair use act.
It's not so much price as horrid DRM. Rumour has it that the PC version of Assassin's Creed II will have one that requires a constant internet connection for a single player game.
This is reasonably standard. How is that horrible DRM?
Well, I'm sure not going to buy it to put on my laptop next vacation. Guess I'll have to stick to Nintendo DS games and books.
Uh, okay. I tend to go hiking and swimming and stuff on vacation.
If it's horrible DRM because it stops people from playing it when they're on vacation in hotels without internet, um, sure...
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
It's a single player game. And there is no offline mode. So if you can't connect to the internet you can't play the game, a game that you've paid for and installed on to your computer.
Copyright infringement is wrong but you have to be honest about the debate and the impact. An instance of infringement does not cost you money unless it corresponds to a lost sale and the vast majority of pirates simply wouldn't buy your product if they were forced to choose. It may help you sleep at night to know that nobody enjoys your work without compensation but that has little bearing on your bottom line.
There needs to be a shift in perspective among content producers that pirates simply are not your customers, potential or otherwise. The steps you take to stop piracy do little more than annoy people who actually pay for your product.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
Hey look at how nice you got the laws written for you years ago, making it illegal to rent music. Nice how much you feel confortable telling people what they can and can not do with their own property. Movies almost got covered too, it would have made video tape rental stores illegal.
So remember if you rent a movie you are a theif.