Join the Copyfight!

Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 7:31 pm

The internet is a whole different universe compared to every day life. How can modern society, filled with creativity, diversity, and adaptation be stopped from their natural processes? Copyright laws, to me, sound like a large and miserably failed excuse to get rid of people in the way of other peoples' self-righteousness. We are the consumers. If the profits from the producers of multimedia do not recede because of so called "copyright infringement" on our part, what is the loss? With this new and rapidly developing universe, there are no limits . But, if for some unknown reason we (the consumers) are at fault for sharing virtual pixels, then so be it. The creators of this data exchange system, the internet, should have been fully aware of their own lack of control over it in the first place. Can this world of pixels be controlled? I think not. Wink

Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 8:19 pm

Dayandnightdreamer wrote:

Okay I was using isoHunt as a way to determine what movies I was going to go buy. My internet provider shut me off for downloading "Baby Mama" through bittorrent. They had all the info what I downloaded, when and what program I used. So fine I won't download movies anymore. I got an 8.99 a month subscription to NetFlix. They have lots of movies I can watch online for free. I have watched more movies through them then I ever did through isoHunt and I can do that at any time. I am not even going to bother buying the movies anymore. So how are they making money now? Several other things I have downloaded (and uploaded) I bought a "hard" copy of and now I just want it in electronic form. I am not against people getting paid for the work they put into it, It does take time and money and energy to create these items. But at some point in time you have to say "Okay you bought it use it in whatever form you need." The world has become too "portable" to restrict the use of what you buy or charge you for every way you want to use it. They spend more money finding and punishing every "transgressor" than they make if they would just shutup and let people be. Confused

They (Netflix) can actually buy a licenses to mass produce/redistribute.
Similar to BMG and Columbia House.
They pay considerably less than the individual copy a user would normally purchase at full price.
It is a crap way around copyright license.
Wouldn't it be fair if the average consumer could also purchase a CD of DVD at a fraction of the retail cost (pennies on the dollar) without an incorporated membership?

Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 8:49 pm

there is also www.hulu.com
for streaming stuff.
Personally I mainly use torrents as a means to supply my anime addiction at this point.
Which kind of gets me off the hook because fan subbed anime is considered parody under copyright law so no one ever harasses me about it. Except my ex... holy crap does she hate anime with a passion.

Anyhow, to get into topic a little bit.
The problem comes down to fear, and the fear is not ours it's that of the media distributors. They are losing control because early on they decided to demonize us instead of trying to find new and creative ways of using the technology to their advantage. My experience talking to other users of bt openly and honestly is that there are really only two primary kinds of users out there
1 - those seeking to test software/ preview movies before spending hard earned money
and
2 - those who simply couldn't afford it in the first place

I honestly don't see how either of these really affect the market, but guess what it does affect... jobs, they have now built a small industry on combating the "threat" brought by bit torrent. and they probably won't stop any time in the foreseeable future, they need to keep it going in order to survive.

Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 9:38 pm

I support this website and all other search engines, Im going to post a bulletin of what you said, to my 23,441 Myspace friends. Best of luck for IsoHunt! My favorite torrent engine!

Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 3:50 am

abrogard wrote:

I think sharing your copy of copyrighted material is okay.

Quote:

3. People will do it anyway and laws should reflect what people will do.

.

So laws should reflect that stealing is ok, because people do it anyway? Yes there are people who steal and people who don't. Just as there are people who illegaly download stuff other people are trying to sell and worked hard to create. And there are people who don't. I am guilty, but not stupid enough to try and say the laws are wrong.

Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:26 am

well I don't wanna get into a big discussion but remember prohibition in the USA? Created gangsters, deaths, torture, corruption, the mob - caused Vegas to be built! And never stopped anyone drinking, because that's what folks do.

It is a fact that laws follow custom - when it goes the other way I guess societies get more and more repressed and solidified, straight jacketed, and die, like Chinese society for a couple of thousand years or so.

Laws follow custom one way because new customs require new laws: cloning is the issue these days isn't it, or one of them. Airplanes required new laws. Psychedelic drugs, they say, required new laws.

They follow custom in another way - generally repealing and relaxing of laws - because society 'grows up' and become more enlightened - for instance universal suffrage, 40 hour working week, etc.

It's the latter aspect I'm referring to, I guess, mainly, saying that society has developed and the laws need to develop with it.

It is a very interesting study. We can see the wheel going round. We can history repeating itself, perhaps in a different guise. Prohibition of 'recreational' drugs has given rise to all that prohibition of alcohol gave rise to.

ho hum.

Smile

Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:32 am

Well without law there is no chaos and with out chaos there is no law =]

so if you take law away then there will be just torrents and no consumer and the whole world will collopse under a huge economic strugle to handle that =]

and without torrents there will be no big change...

So in a way...it pays more to bann torrents

However..being a world with its own consicnes thought...How can we really agree to such a thing? No there must be a way to make it work...but no matter what you say...no matter what we are stealing if you download the torrent and I dont want to make people feel bad i also dl torrents but only movies which I then delete and buy in blue-ray for my ps3...

But to really just about make a law making it legel will not be all milk and honey...Torrent sites will have to take a hit also...it might even end up with us having to pay extra or somthin =]

hope you guys have a good day

-cheers

Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:21 am

Addition to my rant:
Remember that unlike for example cereal, music, once created and distributed once has the potential to be re-used forever. Artists need the multiple returns from their single creation because of that fact. A cereal company can just spew out box after box and people eat them. Once eaten you do not share the pre-eaten cereal. This company doesn't have to re-invent each time, they just find one that works. Toys, you buy your child a toy and in a year he manages to break it. You cannot get that toy back, warranty is out, the store nor the maker of the toy owes you anything. A song is still a tangible product and does require returns, just like everything else in life you should have to pay these returns everytime you access the product in a different way. Just because I buy Advil once doesn't mean I now able to get the extra strength bottle for free. Just because I bought a car from a company doesn't mean next years model is free. This years video card from nvidia does not entitle me to free upgraded cards or remakes of the same card. In fact can you think of a single consumer product that purchasing allows you access to all variations and re-releases there in.

Our economy does not allow for this idea: "Since I payed to see the movie in theaters I should get the DVD for free. Since that movie had a soundtrack to it, I should get that free as well." That is horribly foolish to think that. Even if artists wanted to and big record companies let them, it still does not make sense economically. A theater you pay for the big screen, this powerful stereo, yes even the atmosphere. You are not paying for the right to own the DVD. You are enjoying a brand new movie with a big crowd, this kind of group event is big part of theaters. Of course theaters are most often terrible, that plays nothing into this, if you do not like the atmosphere of your local theater then do not go, wait for it come on DVD. There are of course solutions to this, maybe movie makers should surpass the pathetic theater companies and manage it themselves. Straight to internet for a higher price and theater at same time, then drop prices for DVD release.

Remember, I am a firm believer in this kind of distribution for digital content. I believe artists deserve fair returns for everything. I think in the current state everything is way to over priced. I believe the major companies are enjoying their lavish lifestyle to much to lose economic-profits on any sort of grounding breaking solution. I believe one day a solution will be made that makes most everyone happy.

For one for comparison, this is like saying I went to a restaurant and ordered food, therefore they owe me the recipes to all that food. If I lose those recipes they must give them again. Now that I have these recipes I am free to share them with the world. Absolutely ridiculous. If you where this restaurant/artist, you live on your recipes/songs.

Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:05 am

I like to try something before I buy it, I have spent countless dollars on music CDs, movies and PC software that all promises "The best of the year" and turns out to be shit. Im sorry but I will try these things before hand and if the product is quality then I will go out and purchase, if not I will delete and say "nice try, better luck suckering people at the store with the big huge NO RETURN POLICY on the front."

If this continues it will be reduced to people getting sued by Camera companies for sharing pictures of kids with family because that family member doesnt own the same camera therefore you are not allowed to send them a picture. We teach our kids to share, why dont kids get sued by Fisher Price for letting another kid have his toy? I WANT TO SEE THAT 2 YEAR OLDS RECIEPT!!!!

Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:15 pm

halsafar wrote:

Addition to my rant:
Remember that unlike for example cereal, music, once created and distributed once has the potential to be re-used forever.

The same bakery in my first example doesnt charge me when i decide to make a blt sandwich instead of toast.

I dont know how the law apply in your case,but when i buy a dvd i buy the digital content of it.The same content(as you said,like cereal the content is invented once)is sold to me ten times again and without buying it i cannot use free like i would with any other product.The theatre remark was to make a point not to be the key argument.

There is no cereal producer in the world that would have problem with me using it to feed my goldfish,but when i want to use the music stored in my i-pod in my car-stereo all of of a sudden its a federal crime.

When i go to a restaurant(excelent example)i can use my eyes,taste and smell to copy the dish the next day at home,do you honestly think the chef gives a twit?

Quote:

I believe artists deserve fair returns for everything.

I feel the same way,fair returns are more then ok with me.Heck i wont even have a problem if they triple the money average joe(he's a plumber these days i have heared)makes.

The whole concept of mtv Cribs doesnt show "fair" returns and untill that day i am loading up like a maniac.

Quote:

If you where this restaurant/artist, you live on your recipes/songs.

A restaurant lives on serving food,a artist lives on selling cd,dvd,ringtone,concerts,television showings,sponsors,commercials on their myspace,contracts with recordcompanies,merchandise and even more they live on it when they are dead burried and their grandchildren live on it then.

A restaurant doesnt get paid anyting for food they served 34 years ago.

Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 3:02 pm

I support this all the way! the world is changing rapidly, all sorts of cultural highlights are within reach for many people. This is a wonderfull thing wich should be charished, defended an expanded. I liked the startrek optimism, a world where credits are of no value. this is already possible yet far from being realised because of many selfish, greedy groups of people. Like the one's who are sueing an online search engine. Or a metal band ,worth million's of dollars, complaining they might loose 10 % of their income. Or that cowboy on an oil hunt.

culture is rooted in and at the same time above the system it is created from. Creativity and progression are the goals. Enlightening the people for the sake of equality.
It's about the message coming across, not the material benefits wich can be obtained from it.

Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:36 pm

maybe bands aren't making so much from cd sales they'll get off there ass and tour some more

the more people here ther music the bigger the staduim the more sold out shows

so the more downloads the more people talk the more we share the more famous the bands become

Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 12:08 am

God I love this topic. Record companies, Studio's etc alway love to take the moral high ground and say that people who use P2P sharing, torrents etc are infringers of copyright. Can't say I really buy into that argument because if anything these people are infringing on liberty with their moral crusade. To give you an example - If I buy a CD, copy it, keep the copy and then decide to lend the master disc to friend so he can listen to it then it is my choice to do so. I have purchased the item so I have ownership of it. In most countries I would not have broken the laws of copyright because I haven't reproduced the item for sale, personal gain etc and who I choose to gift/give/share my property with is my business. Telling me that I cannot share my property is an infringement on a person's liberty. In terms of the internet though who's to say which file is the original and which is the copy. I mean really - do we have to go to the extent of developing software to transfer original files from one person to the next while the previous owner keeps a copy. Wouldn't it just be easier for those screaming murder to just get over themselves. Other thoughts that cross my mind is the scam that is CD's. Does anyone remember the massive lie we were all told when CD's first came out and they said they were more durable than casette tapes? Honestly, anyone who tries to tell you that a CD with its scratches is more durable than a tape is outright lying. Happily will I stop using torrents and apologise to anybody whose copyright I have infringed as soon as I get my apology from the record companies regarding the lies they told us about CD's. Also does anyone have any idea how annoying it is when you have bought a new CD and go to play in it in your new CD player but it will not do so or it skips because of the security measures built into the CD. I still recall my regurgitator CD which was developed which ridges in it to prevent a burner from copying it. It did this by stopping the burner from reading it properly which also meant that it would stop any CD player from reading it properly too. Madness. I do stop to consider the innocents in this war my friends - the artists. The only thing that comes to mind about making things right for these people is that episode of the simpsons where they're filming radioactive man the movie in springfield. At the end of the show when springfield has ripped of the movies producers, the producers head back to LA. When they arrive they are told by the whole town who have come back to meet them that they should just take whatever they need from their shops until they're back on their feet. I'm thinking maybe we can have a system like that for artists. Just kidding. But in an insane world maybe it's the sanest choice

Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:23 am

don't overlook the fact that the companies striving to perpetuate the copyright system and their copyright profits are now aiming at the whole world.

Like it's not a band in UK trying to get a fair deal in the UK. Or one in the USA trying to get a fair deal in the USA.

Or a movie studio.

Or anything.

It is a company in some country or other seeing the way the world has suddenly shrunk since the internet and punting for rights across the whole world.

Which means what?

It means instead of a 60 million people market (UK) or a 300 million market (USA) they're now punting to rake off profits from a market of 6billion people. Or everyone within that 6billion who's got a dollar to spend.

And that's what it is really about, my friends. Not you. Not me. Not what you do, not what he does. It is about establishing the legal precedent, the legal 'right', the legal methods and whatever, to do this thing all over the world, so's the profits become truly astronomical.

That is, from the unreal straight-laced, law abiding and repressed, oppressed, few million folks in the western world they're now attempting to move out with all their established tricks for ripping off people into the whole wide world.

BUT - the whole wide world isn't going to come to the party. The whole wide world is full, FULL, of backyard copiers and duplicators and imitators of everything from CD's to machine guns, via pharmaceuticals and computer chips. True, real, living breathing and desperately needy, entrepeneurs, people struggling from Katmandu to Hong Kong to make a living as best they can.

And their governments are on their side, really, I'd say. Pay lip service to the western monopolists and power brokers and international corporations (international = western owned but legally setup to avoid paying any taxes to the west) and promise to stop all this illegal copying and such. But they don't. Of course they don't. They see very clearly the greedy selfish ruthless ripping off that's going on.

So I don't think they'll succeed.

But that's what they're punting for. They want global control. They want to reap global profits.

So that if all you can do is work all your life seven days a week in the paddy field you get nothing, and pay a week's wages for a CD for your kid.

But if you're lucky enough to get sponsored by a multinational (see above) media corporation and get a hit record, well then you'll get millions. And the corporation will get billions.

And they want to claim in the face of world wide suffering humanity, people being murdered, tortured, deprived, dispossessed and starving to death all over this globe, that this is the 'right thing to do'.

It's a joke. A sick joke.

No wonder so much of the world hates us.

Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 7:14 am

The music industry is trying to gouge the consumer with unreasonably high prices for albums! Charging more than $10 for an album? That's ridiculous and completely unaffordable for many music lovers.

Anytime an industry tries to charge too much for their product, they will create a black market. There's no way around it, the high price necessitates it. Honest consumers must negotiate between two criminals: the music industry and the P2P black market.

My advice for the music industry: set up an official website for every artist, sell advertising on the sites, and offer free downloads directly from the sites with a 2 minute spot of advertising.

What's required? A few computer science and visual arts university graduates to maintain the websites and a team of advertising salespeople to sell adspace.

Why aren't music executives already doing this? Do they have any love of music at all? Isohunt has proven that it works. Thank them!