Thoughts about CP/IP and distribution

[ZippyDSMlee]

Snippity snop snip snoop

I'm really sorry, but I seem to find it quite difficult to tell what you're talking about.

Perhaps a one sentence summary?

After some thought reexamination I can do it in one simple sentence.

Copy right should not effect peoples day to day life.

Oh, okay. Thats an idea I can get behind.

Sorry about the eye gouging wall of text OP, I tend to think to much and sometimes to deeply but my skill of expression sucks and then some and well...I may suck at thinking as well too LOL

Now I am going to ramble on a bit more about CP and day to day again I apologize if its a wee bit eye bleedy

Ok so what makes up day to day shearing with friends either lending or making a copy either way its harmless, posting about CP/IP stuff online no profit made no reson for CP/IP owners to go after them, copying and backups sure as CD/DVD/BR blank media is mainly used for that stuff but modchips or things you have to solder onto circuits not so much. One may be able to make it so a license(reverse engineering/electronics) is needed to sell/install them to make that legal. Devices that can make a copy or run copies on a device as long as they have other uses(run more media,add features,ect) its a legit device. Now that is a bit contradictory to have a device made to run copies but may not be sold because it only plays backup copies but its a bone to give to the industry...then again if you give them a bone they take your hand with it since will sue device makers on the grounds its only used for playing copies and we have the statistics to prove it.... uhg......

sorry for the rambling ><

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Ok, so if I'm reading things correctly, you aren't against Copyright or Intellectual Property rights, just the way it's currently enforced.

Unfortunately I can't go into detail on how I see the current mess as coming into being, since it'd take more time than I currently have to devote (site improvements take precedence over in-depth discussion), but simply put it grew from gradual changes based upon pressures caused by the desires of those who create, those who want those things, and those in the middle (i.e distribution). Right now the problem most people have with the system is that the 'power' seems to have collected under those the middle.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Ok, so if I'm reading things correctly, you aren't against Copyright or Intellectual Property rights, just the way it's currently enforced.

Unfortunately I can't go into detail on how I see the current mess as coming into being, since it'd take more time than I currently have to devote (site improvements take precedence over in-depth discussion), but simply put it grew from gradual changes based upon pressures caused by the desires of those who create, those who want those things, and those in the middle (i.e distribution). Right now the problem most people have with the system is that the 'power' seems to have collected under those the middle.

Pretty much I don't have a problem with people getting paid and owning "IP" when it comes to things that revolve around profit and who gets what in terms of ownership and profit rights but when you get into regional,personal and the inability to afford information you can not put a price on knowledge and inspiration when it comes down to the individual they should be free to do anything but profit from "IP" .

If you don't draw a strict line you have to nit pick and allow those with so much power and money to nit pick working moms,kids, grannies and the dead will be sued for infringement, its my opinion that common people the populace at large and even the cheap ass hippie sect can not infringe on copy right until they profit from it.

I mean it should make a clear line int he sand if you one is making money off the site/distribution of "IP" if you limit it to what comes out of peoples pocket and kill off the rest to licensed only it really dose become the perfect scenario, even more so if counter fitting is treated like drug sale(over 1K all entertainment stuff/computers,ect can be taken over 10K everything can be taken). But as things are now society is allowing a mafia like industry using the courts to bully the public at large and that should never have happened....


IMO (again) CP and the media industry has always been a bit greedy I mean look at the stuff that happened in the 20's or so with showtunes and such then as media conglomerated more and more things changed again in the 40-50s and again lil by lil making it so owners not creators have so much power.

Take your time and reply as you can I just like trying to work these thoughts out with people more to the middle of it all rather than "all copying/bypassing is high seas piracy" and "free stuff 4evra".

And thanks again for taking the time to discusses this!!

 

[Starnerf]

I think the best course of action is the 3 strike idea. You get caught infringing once, your ISP sends you a notice saying "Stop it, what you're doing is wrong." The second time you're caught they send another notice saying "Okay, you didn't listen the first time, now we're cutting off your service for a short period to teach you a lesson. If you infringe again we're calling the cops." And they cut off your service for a day or two. Then the next time you're caught infringing they call the cops. Of course, you'd have the opportunity to defend yourself if you feel you've been falsely accused, like if someone's piggy backing on your wi-fi. But I think 3 chances should be enough for anyone to get the picture that you shouldn't be stealing stuff.

You may think common folk shouldn't be subject to such tyrannical measures, and I agree that companies shouldn't go from 0 to sue at the first sign of infringement, but once you've been warned you no longer have an excuse. Common people aren't entitled to intellectual property any more than they're entitled to physical property. If the owner wants to share then so much the better, but owners shouldn't be forced to share if the licensing of their IP is what they make their money from.

I also think that publishers are greedy and tyrannical, but they're a necessary evil in today's mainstream markets. If you want to get a product out there and sell it, you need money. And the best way to get money is to team up with someone who already has it. I think that if we want to circumvent the publishing issue, then self-publishing is the way to go. Then the money stays in the hands of the IP owner and the customers know their money is going to the person who actually generated the IP. Then the developers have a larger portion of the sales revenue to reinvest in their newer products. But until the exposure for indie developers is increased, they will remain a tiny portion of the market. I'd say if you hate the publishing business so much, support independent content-makers. Make them more popular and show other people that alternatives exist.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I think the best course of action is the 3 strike idea. You get caught infringing once, your ISP sends you a notice saying "Stop it, what you're doing is wrong." The second time you're caught they send another notice saying "Okay, you didn't listen the first time, now we're cutting off your service for a short period to teach you a lesson. If you infringe again we're calling the cops." And they cut off your service for a day or two. Then the next time you're caught infringing they call the cops. Of course, you'd have the opportunity to defend yourself if you feel you've been falsely accused, like if someone's piggy backing on your wi-fi. But I think 3 chances should be enough for anyone to get the picture that you shouldn't be stealing stuff.

You may think common folk shouldn't be subject to such tyrannical measures, and I agree that companies shouldn't go from 0 to sue at the first sign of infringement, but once you've been warned you no longer have an excuse. Common people aren't entitled to intellectual property any more than they're entitled to physical property. If the owner wants to share then so much the better, but owners shouldn't be forced to share if the licensing of their IP is what they make their money from.

I also think that publishers are greedy and tyrannical, but they're a necessary evil in today's mainstream markets. If you want to get a product out there and sell it, you need money. And the best way to get money is to team up with someone who already has it. I think that if we want to circumvent the publishing issue, then self-publishing is the way to go. Then the money stays in the hands of the IP owner and the customers know their money is going to the person who actually generated the IP. Then the developers have a larger portion of the sales revenue to reinvest in their newer products. But until the exposure for indie developers is increased, they will remain a tiny portion of the market. I'd say if you hate the publishing business so much, support independent content-makers. Make them more popular and show other people that alternatives exist.

The trouble is what is infringement when we see clips, parts of script,lyrics and other things being successfully removed due to it being infringement 3 strikes is frankly not doing anything but allowing things to continue people still have no solid rights and the media industry has to much power to do nearly anything on a whim.

And this is why I say they should be exempt because most of the things they do with it is harmless.

What is needed is a solid and un vague set of rules that gives consumers full protection from corporate abuse and allows business to focus on real and substantial harm while getting them to target each other more than the people at large.

 

[Timotei]

CP? Hell yes!

Oh my god! It's Chris Hansen! Run!

FFFUUUUU

Spoiler

[HEADING=3]Why don't you have a seat over there?[/HEADING]

 

[Starnerf]

Again, Fair Use ideally should allow the use of small portions of an IP for non-commercial use. But many IP owners don't want to let that happen either, so they threaten to sue the content hosts. Rather than spend money on legal fees, they elect to just remove the material, thereby saving themselves the money. The copyright holders just have to say you were infringing on their copyright, which, if you're using part of their copyrighted material, you are. It's the defendant's job to claim that the use is covered by the Fair Use Doctrine.

The guidelines for determining Fair Use are:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The truth is, right now, the IP owners have final say over what their material can and can't be used for. If you don't like it, use someone else's material or try to convince the owner that it's not detrimental to them.

 

[Kollega]

SURPRISE SNIP!

It all depends, actually. Yes, i agree that nowadays, distribution does not neccesarily equals profit. I support the idea that free distribution is out there, and you can't do shit about it. Corporations should shut up and slowly die. That i can get behind.

But what if i - a creator - want to use art as a full-time job and feed myself that way? Even if i will be successful (i.e. my song/comic/game will not be a steaming pile of you-know-what), i don't get any money for my effort. Just how do we do this? Donations? "Pay-whatever-you-want" model? Just hope and pray that people buy it, say, off Steam? How?

But yeah - having people search for your games on the Internet and play them 20 YEARS AFTER they were released is a very good added bonus.

 

[Altorin]

no one who spells like that should make walls of text like that.

 

[AWC Viper]

CP? Hell yes!

Oh my god! It's Chris Hansen! Run!

FFFUUUUU

Spoiler

[HEADING=3]Why don't you have a seat over there?[/HEADING]

ninja'd

OP: i don't have an opinion on the matter.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Again, Fair Use ideally should allow the use of small portions of an IP for non-commercial use. But many IP owners don't want to let that happen either, so they threaten to sue the content hosts. Rather than spend money on legal fees, they elect to just remove the material, thereby saving themselves the money. The copyright holders just have to say you were infringing on their copyright, which, if you're using part of their copyrighted material, you are. It's the defendant's job to claim that the use is covered by the Fair Use Doctrine.

The guidelines for determining Fair Use are:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The truth is, right now, the IP owners have final say over what their material can and can't be used for. If you don't like it, use someone else's material or try to convince the owner that it's not detrimental to them.

The trouble is it simply dose not work its too vague and allows to much dickary and abuse of the court.

Now lets take those guidelines and simplify them tot he point they can not be so easily abused.

1. Sets fair use to be free of money making, IE if it dose not make money its untouchable.

2.Nature of the copy righted work can be either what medium of media it is or in what was its used for fair use, IE null speak since 1. over rides it.

3.This is where they go crazy because they will not allow any portion to be used for any reason. One could use a blank percentage of 30% it dose not matter what it is as long as its under 30% but this dose not work for images and other copy righted things.

4.This tends to want to limit fair use of newer items and or limit the fair use of tiems that are doing well.


You combine them and its a total mess IMO copy right is not about keeping you from copying or lending its about protecting it as a sell able item being sold in the national/world wide marketplace. I mean modern copy right prevents you from recording broadcast programing in the way you use to do it sure you can still record with tape but to record HD broadcasts you not only need licensed and approved hardware but the broadcast has to be approved as well... this nit picking just has to stop....

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

SURPRISE SNIP!

It all depends, actually. Yes, i agree that nowadays, distribution does not neccesarily equals profit. I support the idea that free distribution is out there, and you can't do shit about it. Corporations should shut up and slowly die. That i can get behind.

But what if i - a creator - want to use art as a full-time job and feed myself that way? Even if i will be successful (i.e. my song/comic/game will not be a steaming pile of you-know-what), i don't get any money for my effort. Just how do we do this? Donations? "Pay-whatever-you-want" model? Just hope and pray that people buy it, say, off Steam? How?

LOL well that's the thing you have to let corporations do their thing but with proper regulations to ensure that they are forced to keep up with the times. This is why I say if its its distributed without gaining any profit(ad rev, donations, direct sell, ect) it should not be touched this allows CP creators to create despite not owning their CP anymore this allows fans to create and business to jump upon any worth while idea(since they haz savagely raped and milked everything else) and bring it into the CP this allows fans to gut, criticize, parody and lend to their hearts content all the while the stuff the people of the world and the majority of regions truly like are well paid and stay in business becuse people want to spend money on them.

People tend to think that somehow just because its free to get its going somehow out due commercial goods and that's not the case how many of us can afford 200+ a month to share that much data? When the only way to freely share information/media in a legal sense places the cost of shearing it on the person shearing it, it marginalizes into what it should be fans doing what fans do, while business focus on becoming better not grasping onto their monopolies with every ounce of life they have in them.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

CP? Hell yes!

Oh my god! It's Chris Hansen! Run!

FFFUUUUU

Spoiler

[HEADING=3]Why don't you have a seat over there?[/HEADING]

ninja'd

OP: i don't have an opinion on the matter.

So you approve of copy right police(think MP3 police only they go after all instances of unapproved copy right usage,pictures,sounds,words,ect ) and only being able to rent media?
That is the reality in which we are headed.

IMO its a vague form of censorship if you do purchase the approved rights for the approved item you are not only entitled to not know but not see it or speak it.

 

[AWC Viper]

CP? Hell yes!

Oh my god! It's Chris Hansen! Run!

FFFUUUUU

Spoiler

[HEADING=3]Why don't you have a seat over there?[/HEADING]

ninja'd

OP: i don't have an opinion on the matter.

So you approve of copy right police(think MP3 police only they go after all instances of unapproved copy right usage,pictures,sounds,words,ect ) and only being able to rent media?
That is the reality in which we are headed.

IMO its a vague form of censorship if you do purchase the approved rights for the approved item you are not only entitled to not know but not see it or speak it.

Again, i don't have an opinion on the matter.

although i don't approve of the copyright police since i DL alot of music.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

CP? Hell yes!

Oh my god! It's Chris Hansen! Run!

FFFUUUUU

Spoiler

[HEADING=3]Why don't you have a seat over there?[/HEADING]

ninja'd

OP: i don't have an opinion on the matter.

So you approve of copy right police(think MP3 police only they go after all instances of unapproved copy right usage,pictures,sounds,words,ect ) and only being able to rent media?
That is the reality in which we are headed.

IMO its a vague form of censorship if you do purchase the approved rights for the approved item you are not only entitled to not know but not see it or speak it.

Again, i don't have an opinion on the matter.

although i don't approve of the copyright police since i DL alot of music.

Well you certainly do have an opinion *pokes ur skull* I am just not asking the right kind of question.

I can assume you are not for absolute copy right where they have all the rights and power and you may only buy from them or not no ad libing no mixing no shooping only doubly approved and verified crap.


Currently if you infringe and they find you they may or may not tell you to stop they may or may not sue you and since anything can be infringement it just makes it worse.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Sorry to bring in this line of thought so late but since it seems people don't think outside the box much.

Step 1
Make free distribution.... free.

Step 2
Then have ISPs follow simple rules you have unlimited download plans but upload is limited to 5-15GB before you have to pay extra for it. Say 25% of the monthly plan rate for every set of 10GB you upload. For business with a normal business license ISPs should charge a bit less than they are now for light to medium usage for business.

Step 3
With laws and snooping becoming more effective and wider spared in a decade or 2 it wont be hard for the industry and law enforcement to go after illegal sites, even more so if ISPs ban together and black list bad parts of the web. Yes if you know what you are doing you can bypass it or ask for a proxy setup to bypass it for a extra 10$ a month but this is just to get the majority away from real illicit media. If common carrier laws make it a impossibility to block bad sites the system will still know who/what/where/when for the most part.

Step 4
Set up laws that treat all forms of unlicensed for profit media usage like drugs IE over 1K luxury items are taken(all forms of media,TV,electronics,expensive clothing and shoes,ect vehicles/houses not so much) over 10K everything is taken by the state.

This covers ALL for profit infringement unless the CP owners make a deal with the defendant or AG, tho I would rather throw all big time crooks under the bridge.....

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Spoiler: earlier quoted post

SURPRISE SNIP!

It all depends, actually. Yes, i agree that nowadays, distribution does not neccesarily equals profit. I support the idea that free distribution is out there, and you can't do shit about it. Corporations should shut up and slowly die. That i can get behind.

But what if i - a creator - want to use art as a full-time job and feed myself that way? Even if i will be successful (i.e. my song/comic/game will not be a steaming pile of you-know-what), i don't get any money for my effort. Just how do we do this? Donations? "Pay-whatever-you-want" model? Just hope and pray that people buy it, say, off Steam? How?

LOL well that's the thing you have to let corporations do their thing but with proper regulations to ensure that they are forced to keep up with the times. This is why I say if its its distributed without gaining any profit(ad rev, donations, direct sell, ect) it should not be touched this allows CP creators to create despite not owning their CP anymore this allows fans to create and business to jump upon any worth while idea(since they haz savagely raped and milked everything else) and bring it into the CP this allows fans to gut, criticize, parody and lend to their hearts content all the while the stuff the people of the world and the majority of regions truly like are well paid and stay in business becuse people want to spend money on them.

People tend to think that somehow just because its free to get its going somehow out due commercial goods and that's not the case how many of us can afford 200+ a month to share that much data? When the only way to freely share information/media in a legal sense places the cost of shearing it on the person shearing it, it marginalizes into what it should be fans doing what fans do, while business focus on becoming better not grasping onto their monopolies with every ounce of life they have in them.

It's not just corporations - individuals get the benefit of the protection. To reuse a phrase, "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater" applies equally when you want to remove protections.

Parody and critical work are protected by Fair Use in the US; I am unfamiliar of other countries as it's hard enough trying to keep passing knownledge in just my own. The owner of the property has the ability to waive the protections of copyright at their choosing.

If the owner of a legally protected work is requiring compensation in exchange for usage/consumption of that work, and someone else without legal rights to it is giving it away at no cost to the user/consumer, the owner of that work is not unharmed. The consumer sees no harm ('hey, free stuff!') and the unauthorized distributor might have decided not to receive compensation for his costs (bandwith, printing, transportation, whatever applies), but the owner is now out his compensation. Additionally, the compensation that the unauthorized distributor might receive in giving out a work for free may be intangible: the very reduction in compensation the owner incurs may damage their ability to create further works, and drive them from the field.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Sorry to bring in this line of thought so late but since it seems people don't think outside the box much.

Step 1
Make free distribution.... free.

Step 2
Then have ISPs follow simple rules you have unlimited download plans but upload is limited to 5-15GB before you have to pay extra for it. Say 25% of the monthly plan rate for every set of 10GB you upload. For business with a normal business license ISPs should charge a bit less than they are now for light to medium usage for business.

Step 3
With laws and snooping becoming more effective and wider spared in a decade or 2 it wont be hard for the industry and law enforcement to go after illegal sites, even more so if ISPs ban together and black list bad parts of the web. Yes if you know what you are doing you can bypass it or ask for a proxy setup to bypass it for a extra 10$ a month but this is just to get the majority away from real illicit media. If common carrier laws make it a impossibility to block bad sites the system will still know who/what/where/when for the most part.

Step 4
Set up laws that treat all forms of unlicensed for profit media usage like drugs IE over 1K luxury items are taken(all forms of media,TV,electronics,expensive clothing and shoes,ect vehicles/houses not so much) over 10K everything is taken by the state.

This covers ALL for profit infringement unless the CP owners make a deal with the defendant or AG, tho I would rather throw all big time crooks under the bridge.....

Step 1
What do you mean by 'free'? Distribution, even by electronic means, is not free of cost. Bandwith costs are not a drop in the bucket.

Step 2
Your account with an ISP already covers your side of the bandwith equation. If you put the control of distribution in their hands, and have them in charge of recovering the costs of electronic media (as your proposals seem to only cover that particular form of IP), you encounter the issue of people who don't want that service - thereby making the ISP corporation in charge of limiting access to content on the internet based upon what you pay. You will find a hard opponent in the Net Neutrality proponents, as this is the very foot in the door to corporate control of the internet that they fear most. Anticipating side-effects is tough, but the ones you miss may cause more harm than good.

Also, consider what this site would look like under your proposal? Would it even exist? Why would an ISP be a better corporation for distribution than the existing ones?

Step 3
Decreased individual privacy is also something people may not be keen on. As with 2, you delve into the Net Neutrality debate, and you may want to consider all potential aspects of what you are proposing.

Step 4
If the work is no longer protected by copyright, then what is the problem you are attempting to solve with this?

 

[AWC Viper]

CP? Hell yes!

Oh my god! It's Chris Hansen! Run!

FFFUUUUU

Spoiler

[HEADING=3]Why don't you have a seat over there?[/HEADING]

ninja'd

OP: i don't have an opinion on the matter.

So you approve of copy right police(think MP3 police only they go after all instances of unapproved copy right usage,pictures,sounds,words,ect ) and only being able to rent media?
That is the reality in which we are headed.

IMO its a vague form of censorship if you do purchase the approved rights for the approved item you are not only entitled to not know but not see it or speak it.

Again, i don't have an opinion on the matter.

although i don't approve of the copyright police since i DL alot of music.

Well you certainly do have an opinion *pokes ur skull* I am just not asking the right kind of question.

I can assume you are not for absolute copy right where they have all the rights and power and you may only buy from them or not no ad libing no mixing no shooping only doubly approved and verified crap.


Currently if you infringe and they find you they may or may not tell you to stop they may or may not sue you and since anything can be infringement it just makes it worse.

ok i dont agree with that.