Obama Administration Announces New Anti-Piracy Initiative(news.yahoo.com)
news.yahoo.com
Obama Administration Announces New Anti-Piracy Initiative
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100622/pl_afp/uscopyrighttrade_20100622192119
8 comments
I think it's an even bigger stretch than that because he's not even alluding to trademark infringement - he's referring to low-quality goods. Now, I think piracy is wrong, but comparing a bootleg movie to a fake life-saving device just makes you look ignorant.
> comparing a bootleg movie to a fake life-saving device just makes you look ignorant
No, it makes you look like you want to protect the American interests oversea while also thinking about the children.
No, it makes you look like you want to protect the American interests oversea while also thinking about the children.
Warms my heart to see someone finally thinking of the children!
"but comparing a bootleg movie to a fake life-saving device just makes you look ignorant."
Not really. Pirated software can be "low quality". They could contain viruses, which also could look bad for the company that made the software.
Not really. Pirated software can be "low quality". They could contain viruses, which also could look bad for the company that made the software.
I agree that the article is lacking in nuance, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The "piracy" that Biden, et al, are speaking of here is not individuals downloading torrents, but bootleggers (largely in China) reproducing and selling works. And, in this case, the similarities are strong.
When you buy an item-- be it a Xanax, a Kevlar vest, or a Pink Floyd CD-- you want to know that it is "authentic" (i.e., made to the proper spec) which implies "authorized".
That's not such a big stretch, is it?
The "piracy" that Biden, et al, are speaking of here is not individuals downloading torrents, but bootleggers (largely in China) reproducing and selling works. And, in this case, the similarities are strong.
When you buy an item-- be it a Xanax, a Kevlar vest, or a Pink Floyd CD-- you want to know that it is "authentic" (i.e., made to the proper spec) which implies "authorized".
That's not such a big stretch, is it?
You're confusing the issue exactly the same way Biden is doing it. I'm pretty sure that you do know that "authentic" does not mean "made to the proper spec" and that you didn't write this out of ignorance. That's exactly the stretch I'm talking about.
Yes, I do care that my Pink Floyd CD is authentic, because I would be pissed off to find out that I shelled out money for Pink Floyd studio album and got a recording of my neighbor singing in the shower or a recording of a Pink Floyd live performance. But that doesn't really have much to do with piracy. In this case we're talking about fraud, not illegal distribution.
Interestingly enough, the situation is not that much different when it comes to material goods, like Xanax or Kevlar vests. If my doctor told me to buy Nexium and I decided to do exactly what he said and buy that particular brand and a pharmacy sold me a knock-off, I would be pissed off because I paid for Nexium (as opposed to a cheaper pill with the exact same dose of esomeprazol). I would be pissed off because I was scammed. I would definitely not be pissed off that Nexium's brand was infringed by whoever made the knock-off.
I do realize that there's a cause-effect relationship there: if it was difficult for people to copy someone else's brand, I would be safer from that kind of fraud. But it's a long way from recognizing that relationship and putting the piracy and counterfeits in the same bag.
Yes, I do care that my Pink Floyd CD is authentic, because I would be pissed off to find out that I shelled out money for Pink Floyd studio album and got a recording of my neighbor singing in the shower or a recording of a Pink Floyd live performance. But that doesn't really have much to do with piracy. In this case we're talking about fraud, not illegal distribution.
Interestingly enough, the situation is not that much different when it comes to material goods, like Xanax or Kevlar vests. If my doctor told me to buy Nexium and I decided to do exactly what he said and buy that particular brand and a pharmacy sold me a knock-off, I would be pissed off because I paid for Nexium (as opposed to a cheaper pill with the exact same dose of esomeprazol). I would be pissed off because I was scammed. I would definitely not be pissed off that Nexium's brand was infringed by whoever made the knock-off.
I do realize that there's a cause-effect relationship there: if it was difficult for people to copy someone else's brand, I would be safer from that kind of fraud. But it's a long way from recognizing that relationship and putting the piracy and counterfeits in the same bag.
Are you suggesting that there's 4 Chinese guys putting out records of Pink Floyd covers? Somehow, I don't think I'd mistake them for the original.
No, but there are Chinese companies that make cheap reproductions of Pink Floyd CDs, and sell them (very cheaply) in Asia, and also (occasionally) in the US. Needless to say, they are sometimes sonically inferior, and lacking the proper packaging (which drives the Floyd guys crazy, believe me.)
Then again, you'd have to be pretty dumb to buy Xanax in the first place considering it costs $135 compared to $5 for the generic.
People that download torrents don't give a fuck about its "authenticity".
Because... they like getting viruses instead of what they googled?
No, because it's free.
Except for the time spent downloading it, in some cases days / weeks. And the implied risk, however small it's interpreted to be. And the danger of it being a virus (diminishing, but applicable). And etc etc etc.
Nothing's "free" to the extent that people wouldn't care if it's crap. Actually, there's a nice analogy: that flaming bag of dog doo on your porch was likely free too, but it may cause damage. Is it a non-issue because it's free?
Nothing's "free" to the extent that people wouldn't care if it's crap. Actually, there's a nice analogy: that flaming bag of dog doo on your porch was likely free too, but it may cause damage. Is it a non-issue because it's free?
> Except for the time spent downloading it, in some cases days / weeks. And the implied risk, however small it's interpreted to be. And the danger of it being a virus (diminishing, but applicable). And etc etc etc.
Downloading is asynchronous. It may cost some computer resources, but probably not any which you would not have used anyways.
You're missing the point. It's practically free, certainly much freer than the retail price. And usually finding the illegal version something (that's worth it) is just a matter of time.
People illegally downloading don't care about authenticity because it's practically free and is worth it to them. Obviously if the time it takes to acquire it illegally over legally is more than its worth to the person, he/she wouldn't do it (or shouldn't do it), but for the majority of people it isn't true.
Downloading is asynchronous. It may cost some computer resources, but probably not any which you would not have used anyways.
You're missing the point. It's practically free, certainly much freer than the retail price. And usually finding the illegal version something (that's worth it) is just a matter of time.
People illegally downloading don't care about authenticity because it's practically free and is worth it to them. Obviously if the time it takes to acquire it illegally over legally is more than its worth to the person, he/she wouldn't do it (or shouldn't do it), but for the majority of people it isn't true.
I'm not so sure this is right. They want a high quality file and hopefully one that is trojan-free etc. Thus, there are several 'name brand' ripping groups.
Media piracy and fake Kevlar vests are completely different issues.
A few random points that should be considered about media piracy: 1) Copyright exists to encourage the creation of new works - ie to benefit the public, not the creators per se. 2) Copyright is a two-edged sword. Maybe knowing that you can copyright a song encourages your creativity. But knowing that they can't reuse your song discourages someone else's. (And reuse of others' work is old - classical composers borrowed others' music or poetry frequently.) 3) Consumers should recognize that NEVER buying movies, music, etc, but ALWAYS pirating them, will mean that some media, like music, is much harder to make, and other media, like big-budget films, are impossible. So it's in fans' interest to buy at least sometimes. 4) On the other hand, media producers have not convincingly shown (to my knowledge) that piracy is really hurting them. Clearly not every download is a lost sale: demand at price 0 will always be greater than at price $15, and piracy may expose people to band which they later buy from (this has happened to me). A decline in music revenues may be partly linked to a rise in video games and other entertainment.
A few random points that should be considered about media piracy: 1) Copyright exists to encourage the creation of new works - ie to benefit the public, not the creators per se. 2) Copyright is a two-edged sword. Maybe knowing that you can copyright a song encourages your creativity. But knowing that they can't reuse your song discourages someone else's. (And reuse of others' work is old - classical composers borrowed others' music or poetry frequently.) 3) Consumers should recognize that NEVER buying movies, music, etc, but ALWAYS pirating them, will mean that some media, like music, is much harder to make, and other media, like big-budget films, are impossible. So it's in fans' interest to buy at least sometimes. 4) On the other hand, media producers have not convincingly shown (to my knowledge) that piracy is really hurting them. Clearly not every download is a lost sale: demand at price 0 will always be greater than at price $15, and piracy may expose people to band which they later buy from (this has happened to me). A decline in music revenues may be partly linked to a rise in video games and other entertainment.
Media piracy and fake Kevlar vests are completely different issues.
But it's pretty easy to conflate them without any objections from the uninformed American public.
But it's pretty easy to conflate them without any objections from the uninformed American public.
> But it's pretty easy to conflate them without any objections from the uninformed American public.
Do you think that Biden actually understands the difference? If he does, do you think that he cares?
Do you think that Biden actually understands the difference? If he does, do you think that he cares?
> Copyright exists to encourage the creation of new works - ie to benefit the public, not the creators per se.
I don't think this is the purpose of copyright anymore ... copyright just became a means to protect "IP", and that's it. It is still considered a means to protect authors, but that's just a facade for protecting the distribution channels.
You can argue all you want, but it's your word against powerful interests groups.
I don't think this is the purpose of copyright anymore ... copyright just became a means to protect "IP", and that's it. It is still considered a means to protect authors, but that's just a facade for protecting the distribution channels.
You can argue all you want, but it's your word against powerful interests groups.
They want to protect the public from unsafe false copies? I can suggest this for software: educate the public on the use of simple cryptographic tools. The public needs to know how to check for themselves that their torrented copy is an authentic copy.
If they want to protect obsolete business models from technology, I would suggest the following: reduce the privacy and freedom of the entire public by spending lots of public money on big brother programs.
The article gave me the uneasy feeling that they are trying to use the first problem to justify the second solution.
If they want to protect obsolete business models from technology, I would suggest the following: reduce the privacy and freedom of the entire public by spending lots of public money on big brother programs.
The article gave me the uneasy feeling that they are trying to use the first problem to justify the second solution.
So, I guess this is the USA's side of compliance to the new copyright treaty that was being cooked up in secret?
It's so tiresome seeing copyright infringement conflated with the counterfeit physical goods which may cause their users physical harm due to not complying with expected specifications.
It's so tiresome seeing copyright infringement conflated with the counterfeit physical goods which may cause their users physical harm due to not complying with expected specifications.
"Piracy hurts, it hurts our economy," Vice President Joe Biden said in releasing the 61-page plan drafted
61-page draft and ask him to sum it up and he will go nuts!! He has no idea what he is speaking of..just a beau talk
61-page draft and ask him to sum it up and he will go nuts!! He has no idea what he is speaking of..just a beau talk
He also apparently speak in comma splices.
Many people do. Spoken language rarely transcribes to good written language.
All that is required to transcribe that quote correctly (and a few others in the article) is to use a semicolon instead of a comma.
I always wondered what a semicolon sounded like.
In the end Piracy saves us...
http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/cmToK.j...
Yahoo! More angry customers for entrepreneurs to capture.
Recently, I came across one of the best things I've ever read on the whole IP topic: Against Intellectual Monopoly: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm
Don't be fooled by the shitty site, these are Cambridge professors, they just also put the book online.
It shows lots of amazing examples throughout history where the concept of IP actually hurt business, not helped. One good example: Dickens was heavily copied and sold here in America, because British copyrights didn't apply here. In the UK, his books sold for $6 each; in America, they sold for $0.06 (or so).
He made more money here.
Don't be fooled by the shitty site, these are Cambridge professors, they just also put the book online.
It shows lots of amazing examples throughout history where the concept of IP actually hurt business, not helped. One good example: Dickens was heavily copied and sold here in America, because British copyrights didn't apply here. In the UK, his books sold for $6 each; in America, they sold for $0.06 (or so).
He made more money here.
"In the UK, his books sold for $6 each; in America, they sold for $0.06 (or so)"
I wonder how much this fun fact is skewed by the fact that the pound was worth way more than the cheap American paper money during the time (not to mention that a lot of states printed their own money, so it would be quite difficult to compile a relative exchange rate).
I wonder how much this fun fact is skewed by the fact that the pound was worth way more than the cheap American paper money during the time (not to mention that a lot of states printed their own money, so it would be quite difficult to compile a relative exchange rate).
I don't remember exactly, as I was borrowing a friend's copy, so I read it pretty quickly.
They cited all their sources, though. I'm assuming that trivial of a mistake wouldn't be made.
They cited all their sources, though. I'm assuming that trivial of a mistake wouldn't be made.
Maybe my interpretation is wrong, but the "logic" seems to be: piracy is about copyright (one kind of intellectual property) infringement, counterfeit goods are about trademark (another kind of intellectual property) infringement, therefore they should be in the same bag. That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?