A Few Words About A few words about...™ Vendors, film piracy and national security (1 Viewer)

[bigshot]

Didn't they just attach criminal punishments to civil judgements? It's still tried in civil courts, not criminal courts I believe. I might be wrong about that.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

What do people say about the unreleased works of JD Salinger?By many accounts there is a trove waiting to be read. Do fans have a "right" to have this material?

 

[Jeff Adkins]

Wouldn't the way to please both sides of this issue be a "use it or lose it" copyright law? I believe they are doing something like this in the UK now and it seems to me that such a provision would solve Michael's complaints in addition to protecting the IP.

 

[ScottHM]

.

 

[JohnMor]

IP is not the same as physical property. With physical property only one exists, and when it's taken, the owner is deprived of being able to do anything with it. IP doesn't involve a solitary physical object. Even if a 12 year old kid downloads a copy, Steven Spielberg can continue to make money from Raiders of the Lost Ark.

IP "theft" is a civil offense. Stealing a physical object is a crimminal offense.

You are absolutely right, of course. I spoke in way too broad of terms. I simply meant that both were actionable offenses. Too often it is viewed as if theft of IP isn't any sort of offense, civil or criminal. In other words, it isn't simply the OCN that is the subject of theft. And, of course, IP theft can be different from music or video piracy, which is a crime, regardless of how infrequently perpetrators may be pursued.

However, you are incorrect that because Steven Spielberg will still make money that no crime has been committed when someone downloads a copy of Raiders. True, I am not going to cry over the amount he lost, but the principal is the same as if he was some poor, struggling blues musician in Mississippi who just got cheated out of his royalty. The point is it was money due him for his property (or the studios, or whatever). Whether he still makes a trillion dollars or dies penniless and buried in a pauper's grave is irrelevant. And, frankly, the focus on the studio or artists' income is too often used as an excuse or justification for the stealing of the property. ("If they weren't so greedy I wouldn't be forced to do this...")

I think it's also important to remember that it isn't just a copy that is taken. It is something physical. It's that specific sale that is lost.

 

[JoshZ]

The thing about art is that, once it's released to the public, it's more than just "IP." It becomes part of the cultural heritage. While I totally respect the right of the artist to be properly compensated for his or her work, I disagree that anyone (whether the original artist or some subsequent owner) should have the unilateral power to withdraw that art from all public view after it's out there, regardless of what power the law currently grants them. Laws will change over time. In the meantime, they're allowed to withhold something that could be culturally significant. (Even a minor work may be important to someone.)

The original intent of copyright was to protect the artist from exploitation, not to allow him to squirrel away work that he'd previously distributed. I would suport a "Use it or lose it" revision to copyright law. That only makes logical sense to me.

 

[JohnMor]

Well, being part of the cultural heritage is not the same as being in the public domain. Until that time comes, the right to withhold or squirrel a work away does reside with the rights' holders. I'm more in favor of reducing the length of time a work can remain copyrighted.

 

[JoshZ]

I'm more in favor of reducing the length of time a work can remain copyrighted.

That is extremely unlikely to happen. A company like Disney is still actively using Mickey Mouse, and will continue to pressure Congress to extend copyright longer and longer and longer to assure that their mascot never falls into the public domain.

Frankly, I'm fine with that. I don't think some other company should be able to profit from Mickey Mouse if Disney is still using him.

Song of the South, however... Disney has made it clear that the company has no intention of ever releasing that one from the vault. What good does it do anyone there? Use it or lose it.

 

[Worth]

However, you are incorrect that because Steven Spielberg will still make money that no crime has been committed when someone downloads a copy of Raiders...The point is it was money due him for his property (or the studios, or whatever)...I think it's also important to remember that it isn't just a copy that is taken. It is something physical. It's that specific sale that is lost.

It's a pretty huge stretch to say that a download constitutes a "lost" sale, though. That assumes that the downloader would be willing to pay to purchase, or rent, a legitimate copy of the film. But I suspect one of the reasons piracy is so rampant, is precisely because it allows people to "sample" titles that they'd forego if they had to pay for them. That's why I think that the damage piracy does to the industry is impossible to calculate.

 

[JohnMor]

That is extremely unlikely to happen. A company like Disney is still actively using Mickey Mouse, and will continue to pressure Congress to extend copyright longer and longer and longer to assure that their mascot never falls into the public domain.

Frankly, I'm fine with that. I don't think some other company should be able to profit from Mickey Mouse if Disney is still using him.

Song of the South, however... Disney has made it clear that the company has no intention of ever releasing that one from the vault. What good does it do anyone there? Use it or lose it.

Where in the law, or even common sense, does it say that someone loses ownership rights if they choose not to turn a profit (or even release a work) for any given duration of time?

It's a pretty huge stretch to say that a download constitutes a "lost" sale, though. That assumes that the downloader would be willing to pay to purchase, or rent, a legitimate copy of the film. But I suspect one of the reasons piracy is so rampant, is precisely because it allows people to "sample" titles that they'd forego if they had to pay for them. That's why I think that the damage piracy does to the industry is impossible to calculate.

It's not a stretch at all. If legitimate releases was the only choice they had, that's what they'd go with, as opposed to forgoing all films completely. Some people just don't care and will buy the cheapest, easiest copy. Also, I'm simply following the logic the majority of posters here put forth supporting bootlegs and their sellers: If the studios released it, they'd buy it. But the studios don't/haven't/won't, hence they are "forced" to buy bootlegs.

 

[bigshot]

However, you are incorrect that because Steven Spielberg will still make money that no crime has been committed when someone downloads a copy of Raiders.

Who are you speaking to with this? I didn't say anything like that. I was pointing out the difference between physical theft and copyright violation.As for both being crimes... Spitting on the sidewalk is a crime. Bombing the Boston Marathon is also a crime. But they're in no way comparable. You have to consider the relative seriousness too.

 

[bigshot]

Most kids downloading wouldn't have the money to buy everything they download, but you can bet that if they download something they really like, they'll go out and buy a quality copy or other music by the same group. Illegal downloads might actually drive sales as much as they discourage them.

 

[JohnMor]

As for both being crimes... Spitting on the sidewalk is a crime. Bombing the Boston Marathon is also a crime. But they're in no way comparable. You have to consider the relative seriousness too.

Uh... okay.

 

[Persianimmortal]

Who are you speaking to with this? I didn't say anything like that. I was pointing out the difference between physical theft and copyright violation.

As for both being crimes... Spitting on the sidewalk is a crime. Bombing the Boston Marathon is also a crime. But they're in no way comparable. You have to consider the relative seriousness too.

Really didn't want to get drawn back into this thread, but some of the nonsense that Bigshot and others keep posting really needs a reply.

To start with: enough with the false difference between physical theft and copyright please. We covered this already earlier in the thread, and I'll give you credit for trying to slip this red herring back into the discussion, but it really doesn't fly. Basically, whether I steal a physical object worth $50 from you, or prevent you from earning an extra $50 in income, the end result is the same: you're out of pocket $50. Not everyone is a Steven Spielberg or George Lucas; for many creators, lost income due to piracy can make the difference between breaking even or losing money on a project. Pirates, as much as they like to paint themselves as Robin Hood types, actually don't seem to care in terms of who they copy from. The piracy statistics clearly show that everything gets pirated, and to a huge degree, and that includes an example I posted earlier of large numbers of people pirating a $1 independent video game bundle, where the entire proceeds went to charity! There is no honor among thieves.

And while it's absolutely true that piracy is, in relative terms, a minor crime, the real issue as you so wisely point out is the scale of any crime. When it comes to piracy, if it was only a small proportion of the population who committed copyright infringement on a regular basis, we could pretty much ignore the problem. The fact of the matter however is that piracy is being conducted on a massive scale. The piracy stats I've posted earlier in this thread show 25% of all Internet bandwidth being consumed by pirated multimedia downloads! And with many popular products, the piracy rates can be as high as 90% (i.e. of all the people consuming a product, 90% are using a pirated version).

So using your example, if 90% of a city's population regularly spat all over the sidewalk, you can bet your bottom dollar the issue would be escalated in terms of criminal hierarchy.

Most kids downloading wouldn't have the money to buy everything they download, but you can bet that if they download something they really like, they'll go out and buy a quality copy or other music by the same group. Illegal downloads might actually drive sales as much as they discourage them.

Wonderful story, but in reality it's much more complex. For one thing, pirated products are no longer inferior copies of the originals. Most pirated material these days comes in the form of 1:1 copies of the original. For movies, that even includes scans of the cover and disc artwork, so that people can even create a retail box that looks almost identical to the original. So there's much less incentive to go out and shell out money to buy the retail copy of the exact same thing again.

Furthermore, there is just as much evidence that when someone tries, and enjoys, something in pirated form, they don't necessarily increase legitimate sales of the product. What they do is tell their friends about how/where to obtain that product in pirated form, or even share their own copy with said friends.

Once again, we return to the original issue I pointed out earlier in this thread: people justifying piracy simply increases piracy, and harms creators. It's not a win-win scenario, it's not something that's going to diminish by itself. It's not a victimless crime being committed by poor young kids who otherwise couldn't afford to buy said product. It's not people only targeting major corporations, or rich creators. It's an undiscerning, rampant, and rising problem.

You can't rely on the goodness of people to do the right thing. If it's available for free, in similar or the same quality, people will opt for the pirated version almost every time. Enough with the justifications for it.

 

[bigshot]

I think this just comes down to personality types. Some people worry about the mote in other people's eyes more than others.

 

[Persianimmortal]

Putting the moral issue to one side, that mote in someone else's eye very quickly becomes a plank in all our eyes. So it's a very practical concern that I have, and one that any forward-thinking individual should pay more attention to.

The practical impact of piracy is that it distorts business models. To use the physical object example you so dearly love, if I steal a car, I deprive one other person of its use. If I could copy a car, and in sufficient numbers, then I may well deprive everyone of its use by putting the manufacturer out of business.

 

[bigshot]

I think it's the business of the studio and the individual customer. A third party who isn't even involved shouting in an internet forum is pretty pointless. I think it's wrong to cheat on taxes, but I'm not going to get up on a soapbox at every opportunity and try to shame everyone who fudges here and there. Really, the amount of hot air expended on internet forums on this issue is really quite amazing. I can only explain it by looking at human nature. Some people find great pleasure in being righteously indignant. Me? I really don't care about kids downloading Justin Beber songs.As for downloading putting the studios out of business... I work in the film business and they don't need any help with that. They are fully capable of putting themselves out of business. The fastest way to do that is to turn business/customer relationships into a lawsuit.

 

[ahollis]

As for downloading putting the studios out of business... I work in the film business and they don't need any help with that.

You work in the film business and do not find it disturbing that people are downloading films without paying for the right to do so. I work in the exhibition business and find it very upsetting when a guest tells me that that don't want to see a certain movie for they already saw it from a download and didn't like it. That takes money out of not only the film makers but the theatre operators, concession workers, ushers and box office workers.

 

[JoshZ]

Where in the law, or even common sense, does it say that someone loses ownership rights if they choose not to turn a profit (or even release a work) for any given duration of time?

What's the point of having a public domain at all if not to turn over artwork to the public after the original artist is no longer profiting from it? Do you disagree with the entire notion of public domain in the first place? Do you believe that, after an artist dies, all of his work should just vanish from the face of the Earth, never to be seen again? So long, Shakespeare, all those plays of yours are forgotten to history.

The concept of public domain was created specifically for Intellectual Property, not physical objects. Your car won't fall into public domain if you leave it parked in the garage for too long. However, IP that has the potential to benefit society deserves to be accessible to that society. If no one is currently using it, the rights open up to the public. That's the reason that public domain exists. Unfortunately, continually extending copyright lengths allows corporations to withhold IP that they have no intention of profiting from or doing anything with.

Use it or lose it. If Mickey Mouse is still in active use, he should not fall into the public domain. However, letting Song of the South languish in a studio vault forever because Disney is too timid to re-release a movie no longer considered politically correct does no one any favors - not you, not me, not even Disney. If Disney had its way, that work would vanish from all recorded history. That's not the intent of copyright. One of the reasons public domain exists is to prevent that from happening.

 

[JohnMor]

What's the point of having a public domain at all if not to turn over artwork to the public after the original artist is no longer profiting from it? Do you disagree with the entire notion of public domain in the first place? Do you believe that, after an artist dies, all of his work should just vanish from the face of the Earth, never to be seen again? So long, Shakespeare, all those plays of yours are forgotten to history.

The concept of public domain was created specifically for Intellectual Property, not physical objects. Your car won't fall into public domain if you leave it parked in the garage for too long. However, IP that has the potential to benefit society deserves to be accessible to that society. If no one is currently using it, the rights open up to the public. That's the reason that public domain exists. Unfortunately, continually extending copyright lengths allows corporations to withhold IP that they have no intention of profiting from or doing anything with.

Use it or lose it. If Mickey Mouse is still in active use, he should not fall into the public domain. However, letting Song of the South languish in a studio vault forever because Disney is too timid to re-release a movie no longer considered politically correct does no one any favors - not you, not me, not even Disney. If Disney had its way, that work would vanish from all recorded history. That's not the intent of copyright. One of the reasons public domain exists is to prevent that from happening.

You clearly haven't read my posts. Of course I support PD, and I've even advocated shortening the copyright length of time to hasten works entering the PD just above in this very thread. So I am not sure what your spurious argument arose from (goodbye Shakespeare works? Are you serious?). And, most importantly, I wasn't even speaking about public domain in that post. I was specifically responding to the idea of a "Use it or lose it" law. And I'll repeat the question with an addendum to help clarify it for you: where in the law, or even common sense, does it say that someone loses ownership rights if they choose not to turn a profit (or even release a work) for any given duration of time during their ownership?