Piracy and Illegal Downloads

[Riggerjack]

Wow. I could not have put it better:

You want to license a song to be in a commercial. The company advertising has to pay the advertising company in order that they pay the publishing company for the use of the copyright who pays the writers of that song as well as the record company that owns the master rights to the recording of the song who has to pay the musicians who performed on the track as well as the television station(s) that the commercial is going to be played on who in turn has to pay the performing rights society who pays the writers every time the commercial airs on TV. Now think of the advertising executives and their creative team and their ad buyers and the lawyers and the licensing agents and the music executives and the writers and the performers and the publishers and the record companies and the television stations and the actors in the commercial and the catering company that feeds the actors in the ad.

Or, you want to put a song in a commercial, so you hire a band to write and perform the song you will use.

In one model, the artist's fee is split how many ways?

In the other, the artists get all the money.

Which model is good for artists, again? Which model supports more artists? Is our society better off with more artists, or more of the specialists Jason is so fond of?

Now I have no issue with specialists. I do have issue with reserving a monopoly for them, and pretending it's for the artists, though. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks that is... disingenuous.

I'm not going to make it my life's work to right this wrong, but I am willing to occasionally look for an NFL stream, rather than watch on the antenna, though. I don't pretend to know what others should do, but I certainly know what I feel good about, and piracy is on that list.

. Are they a sucker if they cling to the old payment model?

I wouldn't think so. Rather, I would describe it as they are more motivated by compliance or convenience than by money. That not a bad boat to be in.

I believe piracy is both moral and effective, but I don't believe everyone should have to do it.

[Campitor]

You want to license a song to be in a commercial. The company advertising has to pay the advertising company in order that they pay the publishing company for the use of the copyright who pays the writers of that song as well as the record company that owns the master rights to the recording of the song who has to pay the musicians who performed on the track as well as the television station(s) that the commercial is going to be played on who in turn has to pay the performing rights society who pays the writers every time the commercial airs on TV...
.. proceed to explain to the world that the era of its righteous regard for intellectual property based on an anachronistic Medieval period conception of ownership has reached its terminus.

You hit the nail on the head. That is one giant cavalcade of people eating at the Intellectual Property trough. And despite what the anti-IP people think, there's a lot of middle class workers feeding at that trough. And historically it's never been better to be the creator of IP worthy of mass dissemination.

[Riggerjack]

And historically it's never been better to be the creator of IP worthy of mass dissemination.

Yeah, I strongly object to this as well. The idea that somehow the corporate marketing strategy is somehow an effective curator of creative quality.

And I agree that there's lots of middle class jobs predicated on IP. That's part of my objection. Those resources could and should be going to content creators.

[Campitor]

Yeah, I strongly object to this as well. The idea that somehow the corporate marketing strategy is somehow an effective curator of creative quality.

And I agree that there's lots of middle class jobs predicated on IP. That's part of my objection. Those resources could and should be going to content creators.

So your plan is to have everyone employed in the IP dissemination loop to work for free and send their checks to content creators? So the guys maintaining the buildings, switches, the electrical lines, laying the fiber, etc., don't deserve to be recompensed for their labor that creators depend on to market their creative content? That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. Good luck trying to get people to drink that kool aid.

[Jason]

I write a song. Let's call it "Arguing With Idiots on The Internet." I put it on my Facebook page and my friend Deejap likes it and sends it to his friend Francois who sends it to his friend Bjorn who sends it to his friend Felipe and all of sudden "Arguing With Idiots On The Internet" is a viral sensation. Everybody loads it up on chat forums when they want to make fun of the typical forum blowhard who runs through five hundred years of world history picking and choosing facts like he's on a drunken rampage reading through Wikipedia's trash box because well that shit is not only free but renders formal education obsolete. The intern at the "Ellen" show hears the song and wants to fly me out to chat with Ellen so she contacts me on my Facebook page. Well, that's some pretty exciting fucking news right there but I'm thinking maybe its in my best interest to contact some professional people in order that I can exploit and monetize my fifteen nano seconds of viral popularity. I mean don't I want to copyright this song so I get paid when they play it on the Ellen show? And maybe I want to contact some professionals in the industry who deal with licensing songs for tv shows or commercials because I'm thinking that might involve some nuance and maybe a lawyer to guide me in this process to ensure I get paid and educate me on some other protective measures I should take. And maybe an agent in case my conceptual album "Seargent Preppers" does in fact go on to change the face of the musical landscape. Because even though I am content creator, I have the common sense to realize the world is a big ol place and business is conducted in such a multitudinous fashion that maybe there is already some type of infrastructure set up because possibly just possibly I don't know of every bottle that needs a washing. And of course, who wants to end up like those two poor ol brothers left to grabbing their junk and yelling "Wright here" every time they watched a commercial airline fly over their drunken and patentless heads.

[Riggerjack]

So your plan is to have everyone employed in the IP dissemination loop to work for free and send their checks to content creators?

I believe I laid out my plan, above. That wasn't in there anywhere. I don't understand why it seems is so difficult to understand.

My Genius Evil Plan: Do Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Sit here, enjoying all the wonders of the world now open to me, feeling good about how things in this arena will work out, with no effort on my part whatsoever. It's worked solidly, for 15 years.

Simply allow technology already developed, to change the economic landscape. As that happens, society adjusts to the new normal. People enter and leave professions based on the information markets provide.

Campitor, read over those last 3 sentences again. How many times on this forum have you espoused exactly that? Why is this different for you?


@Loner, Thanks for the paper. I wonder, is that a vote for riggerjack isn't crazy, or a vote for riggerjack's craziness is spreading?

[Loner]

I think the changes you're sketching out make sense. I've been somewhat involved in the arts and the creative world for 10-15 years (on the creator side), and I can see piracy removing the rug from under the big companies' feet, and the smaller artists/creator getting more leeway and opportunities. I haven't seen numbers but that's my observations. I hope it will continue like that.

[Campitor]

How many times on this forum have you espoused exactly that? Why is this different for you?

I believe what I've posted in this topic has been intellectually consistent with my other posts regarding economic activity. Economic systems create incentives and no system is immune to those incentives. Our desire to protect Intellectual Property is not new and has existed in various forms throughout human history. The current model, however inelegant and imperfect, makes people feel safe to share information because they derive a form of ownership and benefit as a consequence of patents and IP protection; the end result is the plethora of knowledge and technology now widely available even if it comes at a cost. This framework has been a major benefit to every economic strata.

My belief, which is derived from years of reading papers and books on economics, human behavior, psychology, history, and other diverse topics, is that people feel protective of their intellectual creations and/or knowledge. You see this behavior every day: from children who don't like others copying their test or homework, to fishermen who try to keep the best fishing grounds secret.

The system you are advocating for will never exist because history shows this behavior has never been tolerated. Considering that we presently live in the information age, there's even greater incentive to protect and profit from intellectual labor. By tolerating piracy I fear that information, which is now widely available for a price, will be curtailed or lost because the expense to create and share it will not be worth the value of dissemination at any price.

And as I've said before, I do believe IP/patent law should be tweaked but I certainly can't advocate for its complete elimination.

[Riggerjack]

I believe what I've posted in this topic has been intellectually consistent

I believe this is true. And yet, your views appear inconsistent to me. I'm not calling you a hypocrite, I'm hoping you can help me understand how these concepts fit together consistently.

If we were on any other subject, when we get to decisions based on market information vs decisions made by government enforce of regulations, I expect you to make a well reasoned account of the benefits of market decisions, and the costs of regulation.

Intellectual Property rights enforcement is literally the government picking winners in a "first past the goal" fashion. Not the best, the first. Then they protect this market champion for 14 years, or 28 years, or lifetime, or lifetime plus 75 years.

Let's ignore how much innovation is lost because a better idea couldn't overtake a faster idea. What I want, is for you to help me understand how the costs in any other comparison, become benefits in this case.

By the way, if this is an inconsistency, that's cool. I have several myself, and never met anyone without some. I will just stop pestering you for further explanations.

[Riggerjack]

And as I've said before, I do believe IP/patent law should be tweaked but I certainly can't advocate for its complete elimination.

I view IP/patent law as being very much like sodomy laws. At one point gays and blowjobs were a huge threat to the moral fabric of society and decent, civil people needed to shame such things with the firmest means at their disposal.

But eventually, we grew up a bit, society became a bit more cosmopolitan and tolerant, and we decided that it might be ok to let gays have jobs, and husbands, and kids, and all the rights of real people. It turns out that it's better for the economy, and society as a whole, to store gay folks in cubicles, rather than prison cells.

But it was still illegal to get a blowjob in 15 states until 2003.

First, the younger generations reject the most obviously baseless tenants of their parents' worldview. Then they grow old and the previous generation dies off or gets complacent, then the law changes. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the Silent generation rejecting the racism of their parents, after the experiences of WWII showed them how ridiculous the stereotypes were. It wasn't a boomer phenomenon.

I'm not advocating a change in law. I expect IP laws to die after I do. My generation has this wrong. We have to die for the law to catch up.

But I expect, someday, historians will go thru these archived forums, trying to understand how decent people supported imprisoning people for copying data.

[Campitor]

I view IP/patent law as being very much like sodomy laws...

I view IP laws as being very much like laws against rape, theft, and robbery. Sodomy laws prevented adults from engaging in mutually consensual activity - I don't see how taking property without consent fits that paradigm.

When I look back at this forum after everything has been put behind paywalls or kept secret behind firewalls, or offered up via paid subscriptions, I'll look back in incredulity that anyone thought piracy was beneficial to society.

I guess will have to agree to disagree.

[Campitor]

What I want, is for you to help me understand how the costs in any other comparison, become benefits in this case.

To understand my rationale for supporting patent law, you have to look at history of copyright law to see how we got to where we are now (Chesterton's fence).

https://www.arl.org/copyright-timeline/

Harriet Beecher Stowe's translated work was being marketed in the United States without permission or recompense. This mobilized other authors to support copyright laws:

1853: Stowe v. Thomas
Harriet Beecher Stowe sued F.W. Thomas, publisher of a German-language periodical, Die Freie Presse, in 1853. Thomas translated Uncle Tom’s Cabin into German and sold it in the United States without the author’s permission. Judge Robert Grier of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals explained in the decision that once an author published her or his work, “and given his thoughts, sentiments, knowledge or discoveries to the world, he can have no longer an exclusive possession of them.” With regard to translations, he continued, “the same conceptions clothed in another language cannot constitute the same composition; nor can it be called a transcript or ‘copy’ of the same ‘book.'” According to Siva Vaidhyanathan, the “antiproperty” rhetoric in the decision encouraged many American authors to take a stand in favor of copyright as property until the copyright law was revised in 1870 (Vaidhyanathan, 48-50).

Another set of authors who felt maligned by the lack of copyright protection and wanted to do something about it:

1891: International Copyright Treaty
Because American copyright law applied only to American publications, European authors were unable to profit from the publication and sale of their works at extremely low prices during the nineteenth century. The so-called “cheap books” movement, spread rapidly by small upstart publishers after the Civil War, threatened the “courtesy principle” of gentlemanly price-fixing adhered to by the large, established publishers such as Henry Holt. By the 1880s cheap books flooded the American market. By 1890 authors, publishers, and printers’ unions joined together to support an international copyright bill (Vaidhyanathan, 50-55).

But wait - the court considers public harm in copyright infringement suits - especially when it appears to be a gray area of the law that requires congressional input:

1973: Williams and Wilkins Co. v. United States
Williams and Wilkins, publishers of specialized medical journals, sued the National Library of Medicine (NLM) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH)charging that the agencies had infringed copyright by making unauthorized photocopies of articles featured within their publications and distributing them to medical researchers. The U.S. Court of Claims held that medicine, and medical research would be harmed by finding an infringement, and since the Copyright Act was under revision by Congress, it was better to allow the status quo to continue in the interim. In the decision, Judge Davis stated, “the court holds, based on the type and context of use by NIH and NLM as shown by the record, that there has been no infringement, that the challenged use is ‘fair’ in view of the combination of all of the factors involved in consideration of ‘fair’ or ‘unfair’ use enumerated in the opinion, that the record fails to show a significant detriment to plaintiff but demonstrates injury to medical and scientific research if photocopying of this kind is held unlawful, and that there is a need for congressional treatment of the problems of photocopying.”

Legislation that allows the dissemination of copyrighted material in limited circumstances:

1998: Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act
On October 7, 1998, the House and Senate passed S. 505, the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA). The law extended protection from life of the author plus fifty years to life of the author plus seventy years. President Clinton signed the measure into law on October 27, 1998 (P.L. 105-298). The law’s provisions applied to works under copyright on the date of its implementation. An exception permits libraries, archives, and non-profit educational institutions to treat copyrighted works in their last twenty years of protection as if they were in the public domain for non-commercial purposes, under certain limited conditions.

Holy smokes! That big bad meanie of a copyright law is now used against the USPS - Gaylord awarded 10% royalties of the stamp sales resulting from his work:

2010: Gaylord v. United States
Frank Gaylord appealed a United States Court of Federal Claims’ decision that a US postal stamp portraying images of soldier sculptures from the Korean War Veterans Memorial was a fair use a copyrighted work. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with the lower court’s finding that Gaylord was the sole author of the soldier sculptures and that the soldiers were not an architectural work for the purpose of the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act. However, the appellate court rejected the lower court’s holding that the Postal Service’s stamp was a fair use of Gaylord’s work. The appellate court explained that the stamp was not sufficiently transformative in purpose and that the commercial nature of the stamp also weighed against fair use. Additionally, the appellate court rejected the argument that the US was a co-owner of the copyrighted work merely because it commissioned Gaylord to create the sculptures. The court opined that the US did no more than direct Gaylord to create the sculptures; it did not add any creative or original elements to the work, and therefore could not be considered a joint author of the sculptures. For more information, visit http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... as_sdt=2,9.

I could go on ad nauseum but you can see that copyright laws and patent laws are used to protect works of value but that protection is limited and is weighed against the public harm that can occur. And there are laws that govern "abandoned" works that allows the use of abandoned material if it can be demonstrated that a sufficiently rigorous but practical search was made to find the author of the original work.

To benefit litigiously from copyright protection laws you have to demonstrate a harm was done. And the defendant has to demonstrate their actions weren't intended to create a commercial benefit or resulted in a commercial benefit. And In certain circumstances the laws granting protection to IP can be suspended if there's compelling evidence of public harm. This is why copyright laws are a net benefit. It's not a perfect solution but it's workable and has enabled the current infrastructure that has enriched and educated so many people at all levels of income.

[chenda]

Short video touching on copyright and religions derived from pop culture:

https://youtu.be/H0GsLNj648Q

[Riggerjack]

@ chenda, interesting video.

And it's a product of the new world, with limited IP rights and modern financing. (I'm assuming here, really.)

Let's compare and contrast with the industry product:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOdoFPsG-Ag

For those so deeply concerned about losing all that quality the protected industry provides.

[fiby41]

Laws are a lagging indicator. Laws later adapt to what has become prevalent in society /culture anyway by then.

[Jason]

Intellectual Property rights enforcement is literally the government picking winners in a "first past the goal" fashion. Not the best, the first.

Patently false. Pardon the pun.

The US Copyright office and Patent Offices do not provide market protection. They have no enforcement powers. One does not get a cease and desist letter from the Library of Congress stating you are plagiarizing a song. You get that from the songwriter's attorney. The patent and copyright office merely provide a registration process that is the first order of business that a judge will require if two competing parties with a conflict end up in his/her courtroom. If a current copyright or patent registration can't be provided, end of discussion. If one can be provided, then it will be determined through a court of law or settlement process.

Plagiarism cases are legal battles between two copyright holders, usually the respective publishers in conjunction with the songwriters. The department of copyrights does not have a piano in its office where every piece of sheet music is played and determined whether its an infringement. That is why the patent process is so rigorous. You investigate its originality before applying i.e. the pharmaceutical industry to make sure you are not pursuing an idea that will result in a patent dispute with other patent holders. That's why you hire a patent attorney before you file in order to determine whether you have built a better mouse trap.

The bottom line is this. Very rarely does anyone say "the government stole my idea", well maybe the tin cap crowd. And I have never heard "The US Copyright Office Cock Blocked My Hit Song." The statements are to the effect that "those corporate assholes stole my idea or those corporate assholes are not paying me for my idea and my copyright/patent protection is meaningless in the face of their legal resources." And that has been going on since day one and nothing is going to change that. Either over legislating/regulation or over de-legislating/de-regulation because those various and sundry means do not eliminate the basic man is most often an unethical piece of shit issue. That being said, you want to be a mouse that decides to go off the grid and flex, that's your business. But rest assured if you have an original and profitable idea, the corporate elephant will sure as shit still find you and if it so desires, stomp you the fuck out in some type of manner.

Edit: Sodomy Laws

Thomas West a political scholar at Hillsdale College researched the history of sodomy laws in America and found only one instance in which an actual case reached the court system and that involved pedophilia so it was really a rape issue. Sodomy laws were on the book as a legal reflection of the religious climate at the time but were not actively pursued or prosecuted. It was essentially a don't ask don't tell kind of thing at ground level.

Intellectual property rights were not a reflection of a moral climate, but an extension of the Constitution's grant to private ownership, the basis of the founding. These laws have been legislated in the US court systems throughout our history providing legal protection of individual's private property in the same manner we have trespassing laws, breaking and entry laws, bank robbing laws etc. It protects individual's right to property, prosperity and commerce. Without it, we have neither a basis for a republic or a capitalistic society. And the false assumption is that without these laws, prosperity will be expanded into some sort of wiki uptopia. That's naive. The right to own property will revert to the state, not the ether in a typical power abhors a vacuum manner.

[Riggerjack]

Well Jason, that seems like a distinction without a difference. Whether government chooses winners based on campaign contributions, or first to register; and whether it enforces through private lawyers and the court system, or public lawyers and the court system; the end result is winners chosen without market information.

The people get no choice in better/cheaper product, merely first.

But rest assured if you have an original and profitable idea, the corporate elephant will sure as shit still find you and if it so desires, stomp you the fuck out in some type of manner.

What a wonderful system. I can see why you are so loyal to it.

[Jason]

The majority of copyrights filed are never monetized and never get beyond registration. That's why musical copyrights of the songs that have commercial success are usually copyrighted twice, first as unpublished then as published.

Why? Because it's the free market that determines success. Nothing that doesn't make money enters the court system. And if you do recall, civil court cases are not determined by the government but by a jury of our peers. You and I are the ones who listen to the actual song in the courtroom and determine whether Jimmy Page stole the riff to Stairway To Heaven from the band that opened for Led Zeppelin in 1969. Not a government employee or department.

And as Winston Churchill stated: Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. We voluntarily covenanted with the government that we grant them certain powers of oversight in order to protect our rights. One of which is our right to property. Bodily, material, intellectual. And I personally, am not wont to think a new system will eliminate the baser instincts of human nature either expressed at a personal or corporate level.

Edit: You have a great idea. A truly, original idea, previously registered "c's in a circle" will ultimately not prohibit you from having it find success and making money from it. History has proven that to be the case. All patents and copyright are, at their basis, is an attempt not to have people steal ideas that can be monetized from the content creator. And it's not the "C in the Circle" that protects it, its the interpretation of the laws that brought to life the "c in the circle." I can copyright my dick but that doesn't give me the right to be the only to use one although maybe I should look into that come to think of it. Any ways, if it's not worth stealing, there's no need to worry about it. If it's so original, it will be acknowledged and protected. If you come up with something and don't mind people stealing it because flattery pays your fucking bills, don't hire a lawyer. On the other hand, if something is legally protected from theft, its because it has deemed to have monetary value. That's why we can sue for damages if we get injured - theft and damage to bodily property. You take out intellectual property from general property and there's no basis for prosecuting the guy who drove away in your car just because you forgot to take the keys out of the ignition.

[Campitor]

Short video touching on copyright and religions derived from pop culture:

https://youtu.be/H0GsLNj648Q

You can copyright original work but you can't copyright an idea. For example, You can copyright Mickey Mouse but you can't copyright all animation of mice - this is why you have Mighty Mouse, Jerry the Mouse, Ratatouille, etc.

The rights to Star Wars and its derivative works are protected by copyright laws. However the concept of what makes a Jedi as listed in the documentary is not. The Jedi religious adherents within the documentary however are not free to officially call themselves "Jedi" or "The Jedi Order" or any derivative thereof. This doesn't preclude them from naming themselves something else.

[Campitor]

@ chenda, interesting video.

And it's a product of the new world, with limited IP rights and modern financing. (I'm assuming here, really.)

Let's compare and contrast with the industry product:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOdoFPsG-Ag

For those so deeply concerned about losing all that quality the protected industry provides.

Okay I'll bite. The video shown by Chenda is in documentary format and obviously created to educate its audience on the concept of Jediism. The video you linked is a talk show designed to entertain and titillate. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Chenda's video link has only 9,901 views as of today but granted the video was only published yesterday. Your video link was published in 2017 and has 134,238 views.

Total views for the documentary style video channel (ReligionForBreakfast) is 7,360,691 with 102K subscribers. The Good Morning Britain talk show channel has 444,892,337 views and 513K subscribers. Both channels were created about 1.5 years apart (Mar 2013 for ReligionForBreakfast vs Good Morning Britain Aug 2014).

The market obviously prefers titillation over documentaries on religion. I highly doubt the difference in views and subscribers, and the content shown therein, is a result of the copyright system but rather audience preferences. But it's great that Youtube is there to help publish a channel that probably wouldn't exist otherwise; he netted 513K subscribers. The only requirement is that Youtube gets a percentage of any ad revenue generated by his content. Thanks for bolstering my side of the argument.