Join the Copyfight!

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:07 pm

I wanted to reply read my sig. but I change it a lot.

so for any future readers its a US senators quote from 1918 Hiram Johnson

Quote:

The first casualty of war is truth.

In a sense the entire copyright issue is exactly that. The research and truth done by independent agency's has been ignored the results and truth CR holders and governments continue to support the lopsided arguments of DL = Lost sales.

I am not an einstein but a monkey can understand the truth in this matter.
its called MONEY

Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:14 pm

Whenever I read the OP a very specific and appropriate quote came to mind.

"Nothing of me is original. I am the combined efforts of everybody I've ever known." - Chuck Palahniuk

Personally, I can't find a single reason to find this quote to be false.

With this, I think it opens up an argument against copyright in the sense that no one has original thoughts. Whatever you think of was influenced by someone or something at one point in your life. The thought that someone had to create a movie, book, company, etc. was unquestionably influenced by someone or something. Hell, it might have been a more "original" thought to the influence-er, but the person who gets the copyright put onto their product/whatever gets to say "It's mine." ......?

For instance, all of the TV shows out there in the world. Each individual one owns the copyrights, but the majority of the shows these days are influenced by the shows before them. In that case, shouldn't the copyright extend (in essence) to include the show that it was influenced by/ a spinoff of?

It's called progression... Without all of the sharing that occurs, progression wouldn't be near as fast as it is. For example, technology doubles every six months or so. (Don't quote me. Something I think I read at some point) That's freaking ridiculous to think about. The current rate of progression dwarfs what it was in the 80's or 90's.

Anyways, for people to limit the amount of sharing that occurs would ultimately hinder the progression of everything else. (In theory)

Before I stray away from my original thought...Lol.

Basically my argument is, for all I know, I could have been the sole reason you created something and for you to put copyright laws on it and say that I have to purchase my own idea (that was influenced by something else) is bullshit.

Sharing is caring. Very Happy

Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 10:38 pm

http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html
ignore the politics but hear a truth and fight for CCL and Fair Use.

is/was at the base of my sig but time to change it again. So I put the link here.
The politics just ignore them...... if you can do that then a lot of the info in the talk is very relevant as to why the Copyright laws need rethinking.
Forget the monetary aspect the rights and wrongs and still we are left with the repressive reality that is the stifling of creativity due to these oppressive rules.

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 7:15 am

johnno23 wrote:

Forget the monetary aspect the rights and wrongs and still we are left with the repressive reality that is the stifling of creativity due to these oppressive rules.

It's sad, but true...(I put "repressive reality" in bold because for some reason the two words in that order got stuck in my brain. Good job. Haha.)

HEADS UP: Read the last two sentences (excluding the edit) if you don't feel like reading ALL of this.

I watched the video and I must say that it was a very interesting, attention-grabbing video. It made me think more about my post above while watching it.(Get to this in a second) Currently, I am typing this while listening to video on the right side of the page you posted. Titled Larry Lessig on laws that choke creativity. Even with all of the politics he involves in his lectures, the videos have a way of making an impression on you. IF I was against sharing, I think my decision would sway some due to his arguments and how simply they comes across. The easy-to-understand information and examples are his "smoking ace" for the lecture.

On a side note, I had no idea about Walt Disney's history of doing that.

Anyways, I refined my post above some because of more thought and the influence of these videos. In addition to what I stated before:

I still think sharing and influence (that originate from sharing) are leading factors in the progression of today's world. What I don't believe in is things being shared and then being sold for profit at the creator's expense. E.g., music, books, company secrets (E.g., a restaurant's secret sauce). I think Copyright laws should only be applicable to certain things. One big example being medicine. Companies spend an average of 10 years researching, testing, and holding clinical trials to get their product out on the market. They should be able to have "all rights reserved" because they have an exclusive product with a very specific formula. (This may not even deal with copyright laws. It may be more of a patent or something, but you get what I mean. And yes, I realize these laws are already in place.) Some could argue that music is created in a very specific way that has years of producing involved. My rebuttal to that is: yes, music does have those qualities, but the influence of most medicines compared to the influence of a band are galaxies away from being similar or close.

Building on what was just said, I think the copyright laws should integrate having a more qualified criteria in order for products to attain such "protection." I'm a full supporter of a Creative Commons License that gives the creator a choice of waving certain rights to their product.

I don't know of many bands that would want to punish their fans for listening to their music. (I keep using music for examples because it keeps it simple.) Most bands are completely happy about people listening whether it be legally, illegally, or through youtube, etc... On a side note, in order to post music on youtube, you have to alter the the pitch of the entire recording so it doesn't get silenced. Personally, I think the band would want it to be heard the way they recorded it and wouldn't have it silenced at all. Also, the illegally downloading of music doesn't hurt the band that much. First of all, most fans buy the CD to support the band even though the fan has options to obtain it illegally. Second, (From my knowledge) bands don't make the bulk of their products from their CDs. In a way, their CDs are their advertisement. You listen to the CD/songs and when the band comes near your town, you go to their concert if able. A CD cost around $15 whereas some concert tickets can cost anywhere from $20-$120. Plus, at the concerts, the band sells all kinds of merchandise and a lot of people buy it even if it's overpriced because they want a material item for a memory/support of the band/to show off to friends.

OK... I just stopped myself because I feel like I'm rambling, losing my original thought, and keep adding somewhat unnecessary explanations to things. This entire last paragraph is pretty much crap. Lol. Sorry all.

EDIT:: One more thing. Did you know when companies say "all-natural ingredients" that it's a lie? In order for a company to protect their "recipe" they have to change at least one molecule of the ingredient taken from nature. Reason? You can't put a copyright on Mother Nature. BOOM. Wink

Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 4:23 pm

what I dont like is the fact that movie directors copy whatever original material they want and think that they have a right to produce a movie and make money from it.

So many films base on original comic books have already been copied. Most Everyone already knows the storyline
of some comic book hero or character. Yet the material is copied.

Some say the directors paid for the rights to use the material?
So its ok for movie directors to pay for the rights to use the material and continually make money from copies that already have a copyright?

So Now, who owns the rights to the copy of the copy that was copied?
So we actually do have rights to own copies of copies and continually make money from those copies!

So its ok to copy a movie, book, comic book, to make money from it but if its distributed for free its considered illegal?

Well I already bought my copy and now that I am owner, now that I am director of it I have decided to copy it and share it for free, or whatever way I see fit to replenish my "Rum drinking" needs!

YOHO AND A BARREL OF RUM!

Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 4:48 pm

yup....... pretty much why the fight for fair use and a liberal CCL is needed.
I see something original I think I can do better but I offer recognition to the original and if I should make money from my efforts and fair and sensible reward is given to the original creator.
Right now there is no leeway and the repressive restriction is destroying natural progression and creativity.

Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:17 pm

Never cooperate with the agents of copy right!

Don't listen any longer to their lies and control,
You are free
Free to download whatever you want, whenever you want!

Stand up for yourself, don't be scared!
They cant tell you what to do!

Its the agents, they are scared, they are the ones unable to regulate control over what we all have access to.

All they can do is persuade everyone to conform to their controlling powers.

And that is the power we have over them, by not conforming to the control that they keep us
controlled.

This is what to do if you are contacted by any agents:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D7cPH7DHgA&feature=related

Welcome “Space Pirates” to the Digital World!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1fK1_yQ7D0&feature=fvst

YOHO AND A BARREL OF RUM!

Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:49 am

hasjtracker wrote:

"Upload Rate 2163 kB/s, Uploaded bytes:1232.01 GB"

I am doing all i can Very Happy

I want your ISP...

Post fixed, if you want to use BBCode then don't disable it...pacino23

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:03 pm

I find it hard to believe that this has been going on since the whole Napster/Metallica debacle.

Take me for example. I download certain television shows that my local cable provider, doesn't provide. I would sooner watch it as it airs and be in the loop as opposed to getting it the next day after everyone I know has spoiled it for me.

Movies. I download movies as a pre-purchase decision. Would you buy a car without driving it first? Doubtful. If I like the movie and deem it collection worthy then I purchase it. Currently I have over 300 DVD's in my collection. Should I be punished for this? If I wasn't able to preview the movie first, chances are I wouldn't buy it.

I once heard a comedian say" You see the anti-piracy ads when you go to a movie, 'You wouldn't steal a car would you? You wouldn't steal a purse, would you?' No. But if a friend of mine said 'Hey I just bought a new Porsche, want me to burn you a copy?' I'd be inclined to say yes"

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:04 pm

"I'm only evil on the outside." - Pontus Olin

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:11 pm

In my humble opinion I think we/I should be allowed to download/share whatever we like over the internet.

I have paid for a phone line to be able to get onto the internet.
I pay a monthly line rental to stay on the internet.
I pay a monthly broadband fee to my internet provider to stay connected to the internet.

^^^^^^Doesn't any of that entitle me to download anything from the internet for "free" or am I just a crazy person.

Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:20 pm

I need to know more about this

Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:36 pm

ahmed dawod wrote:

I need to know more about this

All you need to know is my ban hammer is up your arse. Now walk it off..

Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:51 am

i agree with Black_Francis, if you want to know about a movie, download it first. if its worthy of your collection, BUY IT! if not, then now you know.

ps, i'd like to know which comedian it was.

Fair point Whitestar28. with the internet bills we get, im sure it would cover some the expenses of downloading movies that cost from at least 1 dollar to as much as a 100 dollars, or pounds, or whichever currency you primarily use. i used to pay 40 Bahraini Dinars [79 Euro; 106 US$; 68 British Pound] for a month. truly is costly and a very limited connection.

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 2:21 am

IH wrote:

Since I've been sued by both the MPAA (Hollywood) and threatened by the CRIA (Canadian recording industry), I've talked about what's been happening with our cases. Our CRIA case has also recently received mainstream press attention by the Canadian Press and Globe & Mail. But the question is why? Why do they insist on suing their own customers? Why do they sue search engines like us, who make the internet more useful for everyone?

The problem lies in something fundamentally broken with the copyright system. A choice quote from Cory Doctorow's article on the "copyfight":

Quote:

So the natural inclination of anyone who is struck by a piece of creative work is to share it. And since "sharing" on the Internet is the same as "copying," this puts you square in copyright's crosshairs. Everyone copies. Dan Glickman, the ex-Congressman who now heads up the Motion Picture Association of America (as pure a copyright maximalist as you could hope to meet) admitted to copying Kirby Dick's documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated (a scorching critique of the MPAA's rating system) but excused it because the copy was "in [his] vault." To pretend that you do not copy is to adopt the twisted hypocrisy of the Victorians who swore that they never, ever masturbated. Everyone knows that they themselves are lying, and a large number of us know that everyone else is lying too.

When the head of the MPAA has to admit to copying the film that criticizes the very industry he represents, an industry group of lobbyists and litigators against such copying, it highlights an important fact beyond the obvious hypocrisy. The internet has completely changed the economics of sharing. When sharing equals copying on the internet and the direct cost of that sharing is effectively $0 (it doesn't cost you anything to share videos on Youtube or BitTorrent), it makes copyright infringement so easy that even Dan Glickman can do it. So easy that a mom like Stephanie Lenz can do it when she posted a video of her 13-month-old son dancing to Prince's music. And I mean no disrespect to them.

This is an age of rampant sharing and remixing, and if you can make the connection between sharing and culture as Doctorow has, you will see this war between rightsholders and consumers will never end and the rightsholders will never win. The band Girl Talk and Lessig and James Boyle and Terry McBride of Nettwerk and isoHunt all echo a common point: Remixing and sharing is good for culture, suing consumers and technologists who enable sharing is destructive for everyone. The internet is a more efficient information machine than the printing press or VCR ever was, and also a whole different animal. It's time the content industries learn to put it to better use as well, by discarding past notions of how business is done based on an economy of scarcity. In Star Trek, currency becomes irrelevant with virtually unlimited "copying" of physical objects with the Replicator. The internet is the Replicator of information. When a 13-month-old dances to Prince's music, copyright infringement is nowhere near his consciousness. It's an endorsement that he likes it, pure and simple.

I've said a number of times that I'm not against copyright, but copyright does need significant reform in the internet age. If all this rampant copying on BitTorrent and the internet has not made a dent in Hollywood's record earnings, why can't we all just get along without rabid lawsuits? Why can't they see that sharing and remixing is a human urge for culture, and when we share and remixes art, it's not a liability but an endorsement for the artist or author or producer?

When the majority of society has no ethical conviction of wrongdoing when they violate copyright law, it's not society that's wrong, it's the law. Because no one can really own ideas. Newton once said, "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of Giants." It's how the arts and sciences progresses. We share, we inspire and we remix.

If you want to join the copyfight, simply share your thoughts by replying, share this post with your friends, and join isoHunt's Facebook group. With our pending lawsuit against the CRIA in our home country, we may need your voice real soon, especially if you are Canadian. For more on Copyfight and where the word came from, go here.

Update: Since this post is all about warm fuzzy sharing, I shared this post on Torrentfreak as a guest columnist. This post, along with everything I write on isoHunt.com, are published under the CC BY-SA license. Share on!

Update 2: For a book author's perspective, a most interesting response and discussion regarding my post on the Copyfight. ( Edit by SecretSquirrel: Having spoken to Rachel Caine via telephone, she echoed the sentiments on her livejournal. Please do give her posting a read, she makes some good points.)

Hey admin I would like to get your input with this whole SOPA bill that may come in place and is it gonna effect your site ?